Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 102857 times)

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1155
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1550 on: November 29, 2019, 08:36:35 AM »

After electoral college, but before inauguration:
        - All rules of succession apply here, so a VP would be slotted to become president. If they both died during this time, I would guess that it would then come down to the House and Senate electing a POTUS and VP respectively.
Isn't there a whole line of succession though? House majority speaker is next after VP. (Please note a lot of my knowledge of US politics comes from watching the West Wing so if that was wrong, so am I. :) ).

So the only thing that I was thinking about is that before the term, there wouldn't be anyone beyond the VP selected. But you're probably right, the new Congressional term would begin with electing a Speaker who immediately ascends to the Presidency and then electing a replacement Speaker. That president could then select a VP to be approved by the Senate.

A very strange happenstance. And potentially politically shaking. Think about if both Pence and Trump just dropped dead within a few days of each other. The Presidency would flip upside down, would a President Pelosi start over? (Then again like 70% of the cabinet are all 'acting', so not much to start over on) Though it would all just come to McConnell obstructing everything and protecting his majority from actually having to take a vote.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3890
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1551 on: November 30, 2019, 05:58:55 PM »
More on the situation inside the Harris campaign from the nytimes (worse than I had thought/heard went I posted a few days ago):

Quote
But her troubles go beyond staffing and strategy: Her financial predicament is dire. The campaign has not taken a poll or been able to afford TV advertising since September, and it has all but quit buying Facebook ads in the last two months.  ...  some of Ms. Harris’s longtime supporters believe she should consider dropping out in late December — the deadline for taking her name off the California primary ballot — if she does not show political momentum. Some advisers are already bracing for a primary challenge, potentially from the billionaire Tom Steyer, should she run for re-election to the Senate in 2022. Her senior aides plan to assess next month whether she’s made sufficient progress to remain in the race. “For her to lose California would be really hard and it’s not looking good,” said Susie Buell, a longtime Harris donor from the Bay Area.

I don't know a lot of harris voters though so it's hard for me to guess where they might end up. The two defining features I can think of for Harris's campaign are law and order (maybe Biden?) and being a good match for debating Trump (I suspect supporters of almost every candidate would argue their candidate is the one who would do the best against Trump). Maybe Warren or Booker if there are Harris supporters are motivated primarily by the idea of making history in terms of the demographics of the next president?

I think Harris dropping out would be (modestly) bad news for Yang. I doubt there are a lot of voters trying to decide between the two of them and she's the next "traditional" candidate he's poised to pass in the RCP polling average, so he loses that potential opportunity to generate some news coverage. Maybe good news for Warren if there are Harris supporters who place putting a democratic woman specifically in the white house as their first priority? But that seems like a stretch.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1552 on: December 01, 2019, 12:14:03 PM »
I think Tulsi Gabbard was the one to take the wind from the sails of her campaign ship.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2138
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1553 on: December 01, 2019, 08:45:44 PM »
I think Tulsi Gabbard was the one to take the wind from the sails of her campaign ship.

But Kamala Harris is a top tier candidate! How dare a peon like Tulsi even address her on the debate stage!
« Last Edit: December 01, 2019, 08:53:21 PM by Daisy »

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1554 on: December 02, 2019, 12:01:51 AM »
I'm kind of surprised the momentum in the betting markets keeps going like this:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting_odds/democratic_2020_nomination/
RIP Warren?

Just got back from Pete's city, where I was admiring the innovative sewage system upgrades installed during his mayorship.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2719
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1555 on: December 02, 2019, 07:27:14 AM »
I honestly can't stand Pete. He's probably at the bottom of the list for me right next to Biden. Pete won his mayorship with 8500 votes. Not by 8500, but with a total of 8500 votes.

Add to that, he isn't a particularly effective mayor.

Add to that that he doesn't actually say anything of substance in these debates.

If he wants to run for a Senate spot in 2022, God bless him, but he looks like a politician bot to me.

You may not like Bloomberg, but--with him in the race--I don't see how Buttigieg can be surging.

Centrist mayor of a city of 200,000 versus centrist mayor of a city of 7,000,000.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1556 on: December 02, 2019, 07:44:05 AM »
South Bend is small, more like 100,000.  I don't think Pete has the right experience.  Maybe he will get there in another decade of public service...


Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1557 on: December 02, 2019, 07:59:17 AM »
Sestak and Bullock are gone now, and the field still seems enormous.

If Pete falters, which could happen as seemingly all the other candidates (other than Biden?) and their surrogates, attack him, then what next? Are we really stuck with a 70+year-old as a candidate? (and that includes Bloomberg now, if he actually gets some traction)  (Bernie is 78, Bloomberg 77, Biden 77, Warren 70. So an average of 75.5 years old. Geez.

I think Pete is doing as well as he is, at least in part, is simply because he's young and sharp, and doesn't make you think, "holy shit he/she is old." I still keep wondering why Booker can't fill that slot, but apparently it's not going to happen.

I mean, seriously...this is Biden's bus. ...Malarkey?? What's his stance on tomfoolery? Who on earth sees this and says, "Yes this is my guy?"




« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 08:01:16 AM by Nick_Miller »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1558 on: December 02, 2019, 08:04:18 AM »
Eh, on the "malarkey" thing... Joe is trading on his no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it is-ness.

Is malarkey a word Gen Z uses? No.

Will the breathless media try to make this into something way more than it is? Yup.

The really ridiculous thing is how much "we" act as though a 2-5 word campaign slogan actually means anything substantive. Sorry, every time someone mocks one of the Democratic candidates, I think, "How does that compare to Trump?"

"No malarkey" is not even half as ridiculous as "Make America Great Again." And yet, the left will fall all over itself laughing about Joe's slogan -- egged on by the mainstream media, which is Trump's greatest propaganda coup.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1559 on: December 02, 2019, 08:08:48 AM »
Eh, on the "malarkey" thing... Joe is trading on his no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it is-ness.

Is malarkey a word Gen Z uses? No.

Will the breathless media try to make this into something way more than it is? Yup.

The really ridiculous thing is how much "we" act as though a 2-5 word campaign slogan actually means anything substantive. Sorry, every time someone mocks one of the Democratic candidates, I think, "How does that compare to Trump?"

"No malarkey" is not even half as ridiculous as "Make America Great Again." And yet, the left will fall all over itself laughing about Joe's slogan -- egged on by the mainstream media, which is Trump's greatest propaganda coup.

I mean, is 'malarkey' even a word that Gen Xers use? (I'm a Gen Xer, mid-40s, and I don't think I've used that word in my entire life) I just think it makes him seem woefully out of touch. I mean, you're a creative person. I am too. Can you visualize getting together a group of creative people and coming out of the meeting with this as your brand?

And no, it's nowhere near as stupid as MAGA, which has numerous obvious issues, but that's a really low floor.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4055
  • Age: 28
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1560 on: December 02, 2019, 08:15:06 AM »
Oh wow, that definitely reads like a joke.

I'm a millennial and I routinely use "Malarkey" but only as a bad nickname for my dog named Lark.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1561 on: December 02, 2019, 08:19:03 AM »
Eh, on the "malarkey" thing... Joe is trading on his no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it is-ness.

Is malarkey a word Gen Z uses? No.

Will the breathless media try to make this into something way more than it is? Yup.

The really ridiculous thing is how much "we" act as though a 2-5 word campaign slogan actually means anything substantive. Sorry, every time someone mocks one of the Democratic candidates, I think, "How does that compare to Trump?"

"No malarkey" is not even half as ridiculous as "Make America Great Again." And yet, the left will fall all over itself laughing about Joe's slogan -- egged on by the mainstream media, which is Trump's greatest propaganda coup.

I mean, is 'malarkey' even a word that Gen Xers use? (I'm a Gen Xer, mid-40s, and I don't think I've used that word in my entire life) I just think it makes him seem woefully out of touch. I mean, you're a creative person. I am too. Can you visualize getting together a group of creative people and coming out of the meeting with this as your brand?

And no, it's nowhere near as stupid as MAGA, which has numerous obvious issues, but that's a really low floor.

No, it's not a word Gen X'ers use. But it's a word he uses. And he has, for decades. It's definitely a term associated with him.

At least in that way, it's genuine. Unlike most of the slogans.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3890
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1562 on: December 02, 2019, 08:26:01 AM »
I'm wondering if the current round of drop outs is a direct consequence of Buttigieg's rise in the polls. I think a lot of candidates have been staying in the race because everyone assumes Biden is going to collapse at some point,* and a lot of folks saw themselves as positioned to be the fallback plan for moderate democratic voters and people prioritizing electability over left wing policy bona fides.

Now now that Buttigieg broke the 10% barrier in national polls (apparently pulling mostly from Warren supporters rather than Biden's at least so far), candidates like Sestak and Bullock may have seen themselves as at least two campaign collapses away from being the new default choice for moderate or establishment democrats instead of just one.
 
*Based on either his debate performances, his age (both chronological and perceived), or his poor fundraising relative to other candidates in the top four. That said, people have been predicting a Biden collapse basically since he's entered the race and so far nothing.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2138
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1563 on: December 02, 2019, 08:35:09 AM »
Make Malarkey Great Again

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1564 on: December 02, 2019, 05:07:35 PM »
Speaking of GenX -- where the hell are the GenX Democrats?  Why do we have this giant age gap with zero representation?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1565 on: December 02, 2019, 05:18:21 PM »
Speaking of GenX -- where the hell are the GenX Democrats?  Why do we have this giant age gap with zero representation?

Booker, Castro, and Yang are Gen X’ers. Actually, the spread is pretty even from old to young.

It is weird that the top 3 candidates by popularity have been old, though.

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 873
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1566 on: December 02, 2019, 07:14:20 PM »
Speaking of GenX -- where the hell are the GenX Democrats?  Why do we have this giant age gap with zero representation?

Booker, Castro, and Yang are Gen X’ers. Actually, the spread is pretty even from old to young.

It is weird that the top 3 candidates by popularity have been old, though.

I mean, old people are the most reliable voters and political participants, and people generally like candidates that look like/remind them of themselves, so it doesn't seem too weird to me.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1567 on: December 02, 2019, 07:20:45 PM »
Name recognition.  "The Brand," is certainly not all BS.

Thinking a tiny bit, I'd rather have a coke than a Malarkey.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4775
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1568 on: December 02, 2019, 07:49:38 PM »
Eh, on the "malarkey" thing... Joe is trading on his no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it is-ness.

Is malarkey a word Gen Z uses? No.

Will the breathless media try to make this into something way more than it is? Yup.

The really ridiculous thing is how much "we" act as though a 2-5 word campaign slogan actually means anything substantive. Sorry, every time someone mocks one of the Democratic candidates, I think, "How does that compare to Trump?"

"No malarkey" is not even half as ridiculous as "Make America Great Again." And yet, the left will fall all over itself laughing about Joe's slogan -- egged on by the mainstream media, which is Trump's greatest propaganda coup.

I mean, is 'malarkey' even a word that Gen Xers use? (I'm a Gen Xer, mid-40s, and I don't think I've used that word in my entire life) I just think it makes him seem woefully out of touch. I mean, you're a creative person. I am too. Can you visualize getting together a group of creative people and coming out of the meeting with this as your brand?

And no, it's nowhere near as stupid as MAGA, which has numerous obvious issues, but that's a really low floor.

No, it's not a word Gen X'ers use. But it's a word he uses. And he has, for decades. It's definitely a term associated with him.

At least in that way, it's genuine. Unlike most of the slogans.
I smiled when I read it, because yep that's Uncle Joe, right there.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2631
  • Location: South Korea
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1569 on: December 02, 2019, 11:14:19 PM »
Speaking of GenX -- where the hell are the GenX Democrats?  Why do we have this giant age gap with zero representation?

Booker, Castro, and Yang are Gen X’ers. Actually, the spread is pretty even from old to young.

It is weird that the top 3 candidates by popularity have been old, though.

I mean, old people are the most reliable voters and political participants, and people generally like candidates that look like/remind them of themselves, so it doesn't seem too weird to me.

They've also been in the game for a long time. Old age = we know them and vote for what is more familiar.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1570 on: December 03, 2019, 04:53:49 AM »
Joe Biden and malarkey is just not good at all. Makes me think of some old goat from the 1920's waving a cane and screaming malarkey. However, if he were to have a 'hip' phrase, it would seem out of order too. I think if his catch phrase had been more thought out they could have come up with something better for sure. Now they are stuck with this ancient word. Unless malarkey makes a comeback now that it is in the public eye. I think there could have been a lot of better choices in his catch phrase. Like, Biden speaks the truth, Biden will fight for you, Biden's American dream, Biden...older, wiser, experienced...

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2719
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1571 on: December 03, 2019, 08:14:27 AM »
Look, the truth is that Biden should have run in 2016. Many, many people who reflexively were going to vote against Clinton would have shown up to vote for him. Of course, at that moment he would have been seventy-four years old, with there never having been a President elected who was over the age of 70.

But Clinton did an effective job behind-the-scenes of locking up the Democratic party behind her because of how she was burned by the emergence of Obama in 2008. A serious part of that was convincing Biden not to challenge her. I could totally see a world in which Biden would have lost a fair primary to Clinton, but beaten Trump once it gets to the general election.

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1572 on: December 03, 2019, 08:53:04 AM »
Look, the truth is that Biden should have run in 2016. Many, many people who reflexively were going to vote against Clinton would have shown up to vote for him. Of course, at that moment he would have been seventy-four years old, with there never having been a President elected who was over the age of 70.

But Clinton did an effective job behind-the-scenes of locking up the Democratic party behind her because of how she was burned by the emergence of Obama in 2008. A serious part of that was convincing Biden not to challenge her. I could totally see a world in which Biden would have lost a fair primary to Clinton, but beaten Trump once it gets to the general election.

I agree. I'm pretty sure that if his son, Beau, hadn't passed away mid 2015 Biden would be president now. He was dealing with grief and tending to his family right when a run would have had to have been launched.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1573 on: December 03, 2019, 08:53:38 AM »
Look, the truth is that Biden should have run in 2016. Many, many people who reflexively were going to vote against Clinton would have shown up to vote for him. Of course, at that moment he would have been seventy-four years old, with there never having been a President elected who was over the age of 70.

But Clinton did an effective job behind-the-scenes of locking up the Democratic party behind her because of how she was burned by the emergence of Obama in 2008. A serious part of that was convincing Biden not to challenge her. I could totally see a world in which Biden would have lost a fair primary to Clinton, but beaten Trump once it gets to the general election.

I very much believe that Biden would have beaten Trump in 2016.

But I haven't seen any evidence anywhere of Clinton/the DNC working to convince Biden not to challenge her. Do you have any proof of this? Or is it just your guess?

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3890
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1574 on: December 03, 2019, 09:47:01 AM »
Didn't Biden come on some late night TV show to talk about politics and end up breaking down about the death of his son? I also believe that if he'd run he would have won the general, but it's really hard to blame the guy for needing to mourn and spend time with his family after something like that.

I'm not sure what would have happened in the democratic primary is Beau hadn't passed. From 2020, it seems like Sanders has about 16-18% of the electorate who would have backed him now matter what. The other 32-34 percent of the democratic electorate who backed Sanders in 2016 but aren't in 2020 would have almost certainly switched to Biden* given the choice of another viable alternative to Clinton.

Were there enough people who voted for Clinton in 2016 because they disliked her less (or thought she was less unelectable) than Sanders for Biden to get a majority of delegates on the first ballot? Or would Biden running have meant we'd have ended up with a brokered convention or even worse a "the super delegates decide" scenario in 2016?

*This is the category I'm in myself.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1575 on: December 03, 2019, 09:54:57 AM »
What I like about Buttigieg is that he sounds very natural and spontaneous when he is speaking to the media.
When Clinton used to talk to the media or make speeches she sounded very rehearsed.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1576 on: December 03, 2019, 10:49:33 AM »
DavidAnnArbor, I agree with you! Pete is my choice if I could vote for him. He is well educated, speaks well, can put an intelligent sentence together, unlike our president. We need some young blood to run our country. I would also like to see an vice president that was older with worldly experience. Young and old working together.


Secret Stache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3890
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1578 on: December 03, 2019, 11:28:28 AM »
Yikes, that was fast. Thank you for posting the news Secret Stashe.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1155
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1579 on: December 03, 2019, 11:41:00 AM »
Ohh I was thinking she was going to stick it out through the debate. I saw in a poll that the majority of Kamala supporters' second choice is Warren, So maybe we'll see Warren get a small bump from this.

Secret Stache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1580 on: December 03, 2019, 11:46:42 AM »
Ohh I was thinking she was going to stick it out through the debate. I saw in a poll that the majority of Kamala supporters' second choice is Warren, So maybe we'll see Warren get a small bump from this.

I expected her to endorse someone else in an effort to secure cabinet position or VP spot with how quick this feels.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1581 on: December 03, 2019, 11:51:12 AM »
I'd like to see Bernie, Pete, Warren, etc., focus on the billionaires in the next debate.

It's bad enough that less well-off candidates have to spend so much energy and time fundraising, but Steyer (and probably Bloomberg soon) essentially buying their way on stage with ridiculous amounts of their own money is like next level nauseating to me.

Even Bernie's and Warren's and Pete's impressive hauls thus far are going to pale in comparison to what Steyer and Bloomberg might be getting ready to spend. I mean, there's no way they can keep up $ to $.


secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1582 on: December 03, 2019, 12:23:09 PM »
It's bad enough that less well-off candidates have to spend so much energy and time fundraising, but Steyer (and probably Bloomberg soon) essentially buying their way on stage with ridiculous amounts of their own money is like next level nauseating to me.

Even Bernie's and Warren's and Pete's impressive hauls thus far are going to pale in comparison to what Steyer and Bloomberg might be getting ready to spend. I mean, there's no way they can keep up $ to $.

I probably rely on history too much, but I'm reminded of Jeb Bush in 2016.  IIRC he spent a lot of money but didn't really ever get very much support among the primary voters and dropped out relatively early in the process.  And in his case he also had the support of much of the party elite.

So my conclusion is that having the backing of the party elite and a lot of money to spend are nice things to have but won't actually work unless the candidate themselves is good.  I'm not sure if Steyer or Bloomberg are good candidates.

I do note that Steyer is running ads in my state.  This is none too bright because my state last went Democratic in 1964 and we're irrelevant even in the Democratic primary - too few delegates (4) too late (the week after Super Tuesday).  He's entitled to waste his money, of course, but it does reflect poorly on his campaign's decision making IMHO.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1193
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1583 on: December 03, 2019, 12:45:18 PM »
Kamala Harris has dropped out.  That's too bad because she is smart and capable, she has a solid background as a state attorney general and US senator, and she could speak to a variety of demographics.  I could be wrong, but I think we are going to get Joe Biden. 

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1584 on: December 03, 2019, 01:01:14 PM »
It's bad enough that less well-off candidates have to spend so much energy and time fundraising, but Steyer (and probably Bloomberg soon) essentially buying their way on stage with ridiculous amounts of their own money is like next level nauseating to me.

Even Bernie's and Warren's and Pete's impressive hauls thus far are going to pale in comparison to what Steyer and Bloomberg might be getting ready to spend. I mean, there's no way they can keep up $ to $.

I probably rely on history too much, but I'm reminded of Jeb Bush in 2016.  IIRC he spent a lot of money but didn't really ever get very much support among the primary voters and dropped out relatively early in the process.  And in his case he also had the support of much of the party elite.

So my conclusion is that having the backing of the party elite and a lot of money to spend are nice things to have but won't actually work unless the candidate themselves is good.  I'm not sure if Steyer or Bloomberg are good candidates.

I do note that Steyer is running ads in my state.  This is none too bright because my state last went Democratic in 1964 and we're irrelevant even in the Democratic primary - too few delegates (4) too late (the week after Super Tuesday).  He's entitled to waste his money, of course, but it does reflect poorly on his campaign's decision making IMHO.

Well, I didn't say they could had bought their way to the nomination itself, just the debate stage. Which Steyer has, and which I think Bloomberg will, although he has limited time and he can't control how many polls come out between now and the cut-off.

Can they essentially buy their way to the nomination? I don't know.

What if Bloomberg says, "Nominate me, and I will spend $1B in the general, blanketing the country with every sort of anti-Trump ad you can possibly imagine! Money will be no object! The Democrats won't be fighting out of hole against some huge GOP $ advantage. I'll make the GOP war chest look impotent and puny."?

I mean, that would probably be his only real appeal.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1585 on: December 03, 2019, 01:49:50 PM »
Well, I didn't say they could had bought their way to the nomination itself, just the debate stage. Which Steyer has, and which I think Bloomberg will, although he has limited time and he can't control how many polls come out between now and the cut-off.

Can they essentially buy their way to the nomination? I don't know.

What if Bloomberg says, "Nominate me, and I will spend $1B in the general, blanketing the country with every sort of anti-Trump ad you can possibly imagine! Money will be no object! The Democrats won't be fighting out of hole against some huge GOP $ advantage. I'll make the GOP war chest look impotent and puny."?

I mean, that would probably be his only real appeal.

Yes, you did.  I went ahead and assumed that Steyer and Bloomberg are trying to get on the stage to try to win the nomination, thus my general comments about that.

I don't think either of them can buy their way to a win of the nomination or the general election.  But that's just my opinion.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4055
  • Age: 28
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1586 on: December 03, 2019, 03:06:59 PM »
And then there were... fifteen?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1588 on: December 04, 2019, 08:26:21 AM »
Kamala Harris has dropped out.  That's too bad because she is smart and capable, she has a solid background as a state attorney general and US senator, and she could speak to a variety of demographics.  I could be wrong, but I think we are going to get Joe Biden.

Thank god for that. Last thing I want is a horrible aggressive prosecutor who impressions innocent people for fun and profit, and protects crooked cops
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xwkab/jamal-trulove-wants-kamala-harris-to-talk-about-his-wrongful-conviction
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

I mean, wow.. Did anyone think this would be a good Democratic president in 2019:
"Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors. "

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1589 on: December 04, 2019, 08:46:59 AM »
What I like about Buttigieg is that he sounds very natural and spontaneous when he is speaking to the media.
When Clinton used to talk to the media or make speeches she sounded very rehearsed.

I'm curious what you Buttigieg "fans" think if his (shady) past in McKinsey? Ruhtless layoffs, supporting authoritarian state companies, war-profitering etc?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a35m58/why-buttigiegs-shadowy-consultant-past-at-mckinsey-matters
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/pete-buttigieg-mckinsey

I really don't care what he sounds like when he talks, I have deep concerns what his past says about him.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1590 on: December 04, 2019, 08:49:05 AM »
I mean, wow.. Did anyone think this would be a good Democratic president in 2019:
"Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors. "

Worth mentioning that Guantanamo Bay is still open.  Seventeen years and running.

The place where people (including 21 children) who were illegally abducted (86% of the inmates were turned over to US forces by foreigners who recieved a bounty for the kidnapping) from around the world have been raped, beaten, and tortured by Americans.  All for alleged offenses that have never seen a fair trial and have no hope of receiving due process.  So far, more than 200 FBI agents at the facility have reported abusive treatment of prisoners.  7 military prosecutors resigned or requested reassignment due to concerns that the military commissions at Guantanamo were unjust.  All at the low, low cost to the American people of 11 million dollars per year per prisoner.

So, given the total lack of caring about that miscarriage of justice that the American people have shown . . . I'm not sure exactly why you think that upholding wrongful convictions would be a deal-breaker.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1591 on: December 04, 2019, 09:02:47 AM »
I mean, wow.. Did anyone think this would be a good Democratic president in 2019:
"Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors. "

Worth mentioning that Guantanamo Bay is still open.  Seventeen years and running.

The place where people (including 21 children) who were illegally abducted (86% of the inmates were turned over to US forces by foreigners who recieved a bounty for the kidnapping) from around the world have been raped, beaten, and tortured by Americans.  All for alleged offenses that have never seen a fair trial and have no hope of receiving due process.  So far, more than 200 FBI agents at the facility have reported abusive treatment of prisoners.  7 military prosecutors resigned or requested reassignment due to concerns that the military commissions at Guantanamo were unjust.  All at the low, low cost to the American people of 11 million dollars per year per prisoner.

So, given the total lack of caring about that miscarriage of justice that the American people have shown . . . I'm not sure exactly why you think that upholding wrongful convictions would be a deal-breaker.

No, not really surprised I suppose. I kept saying Obama was a  lying POS the whole time for refusing to do anything about gitmo, and war on "terror" in general (and spare me the "Gop wouldn't let us!" crap). But those were foreigners, and not even liberals give a crap about what happens to them. Kamala were going after US citizens, often poor and/or POC. So in this BLM area I'd expect progressives to care at least somewhat about her past.. But guess not. "she's a strong candidate! she's a woman" is apparently at that matters. This goes for the  Buttigieg support too really, his past is super shady.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 09:13:23 AM by Scandium »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4584
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1592 on: December 04, 2019, 09:16:59 AM »
I mean, wow.. Did anyone think this would be a good Democratic president in 2019:
"Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors. "

Worth mentioning that Guantanamo Bay is still open.  Seventeen years and running.

The place where people (including 21 children) who were illegally abducted (86% of the inmates were turned over to US forces by foreigners who recieved a bounty for the kidnapping) from around the world have been raped, beaten, and tortured by Americans.  All for alleged offenses that have never seen a fair trial and have no hope of receiving due process.  So far, more than 200 FBI agents at the facility have reported abusive treatment of prisoners.  7 military prosecutors resigned or requested reassignment due to concerns that the military commissions at Guantanamo were unjust.  All at the low, low cost to the American people of 11 million dollars per year per prisoner.

So, given the total lack of caring about that miscarriage of justice that the American people have shown . . . I'm not sure exactly why you think that upholding wrongful convictions would be a deal-breaker.

No, not really surprised I suppose. I kept saying Obama was a  lying POS the whole time for refusing to do anything about gitmo, and war on "terror" in general (and spare me the "Gop wouldn't let us!" crap). But those were foreigners, and not even liberals give a crap about what happens to them. Kamala were going after US citizens, often poor and/or POC. So in this BLM area I'd expect progressives to care at least somewhat about her past.. But guess not. "she's a strong candidate! she's a woman" is apparently at that matters. This goes for the  Buttigieg support too really, his past is super shady.

Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo on his second day in office.

Congress stopped him from doing it.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4060
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1593 on: December 04, 2019, 09:22:27 AM »
So in this BLM area I'd expect progressives to care at least somewhat about her past.. But guess not. "she's a strong candidate! she's a woman" is apparently at that matters.

?? She dropped out because of poor funding and poor polling. Obviously, a lot of progressives didn't care enough about her candidacy.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1155
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1594 on: December 04, 2019, 09:31:56 AM »
I mean, wow.. Did anyone think this would be a good Democratic president in 2019:
"Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors. "

Worth mentioning that Guantanamo Bay is still open.  Seventeen years and running.

The place where people (including 21 children) who were illegally abducted (86% of the inmates were turned over to US forces by foreigners who recieved a bounty for the kidnapping) from around the world have been raped, beaten, and tortured by Americans.  All for alleged offenses that have never seen a fair trial and have no hope of receiving due process.  So far, more than 200 FBI agents at the facility have reported abusive treatment of prisoners.  7 military prosecutors resigned or requested reassignment due to concerns that the military commissions at Guantanamo were unjust.  All at the low, low cost to the American people of 11 million dollars per year per prisoner.

So, given the total lack of caring about that miscarriage of justice that the American people have shown . . . I'm not sure exactly why you think that upholding wrongful convictions would be a deal-breaker.

No, not really surprised I suppose. I kept saying Obama was a  lying POS the whole time for refusing to do anything about gitmo, and war on "terror" in general (and spare me the "Gop wouldn't let us!" crap). But those were foreigners, and not even liberals give a crap about what happens to them. Kamala were going after US citizens, often poor and/or POC. So in this BLM area I'd expect progressives to care at least somewhat about her past.. But guess not. "she's a strong candidate! she's a woman" is apparently at that matters. This goes for the  Buttigieg support too really, his past is super shady.

Uhh what? It was congress that ended up voting down any Gitmo closure funding. If anything Obama did everything he could through the executive alone moving a number of prisoners from Gitmo to the US. Heck the Obama admin was even just trying to buy more federal prison space and the GOP would claim that he was secretly trying to buy a Gitmo prisoner space. And it wasn't just the GOP half the dems wouldn't vote for gitmo closing either. Politicians just fear the blowback on that one.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14309
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1595 on: December 04, 2019, 09:33:07 AM »
I mean, wow.. Did anyone think this would be a good Democratic president in 2019:
"Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors. "

Worth mentioning that Guantanamo Bay is still open.  Seventeen years and running.

The place where people (including 21 children) who were illegally abducted (86% of the inmates were turned over to US forces by foreigners who recieved a bounty for the kidnapping) from around the world have been raped, beaten, and tortured by Americans.  All for alleged offenses that have never seen a fair trial and have no hope of receiving due process.  So far, more than 200 FBI agents at the facility have reported abusive treatment of prisoners.  7 military prosecutors resigned or requested reassignment due to concerns that the military commissions at Guantanamo were unjust.  All at the low, low cost to the American people of 11 million dollars per year per prisoner.

So, given the total lack of caring about that miscarriage of justice that the American people have shown . . . I'm not sure exactly why you think that upholding wrongful convictions would be a deal-breaker.

No, not really surprised I suppose. I kept saying Obama was a  lying POS the whole time for refusing to do anything about gitmo, and war on "terror" in general (and spare me the "Gop wouldn't let us!" crap). But those were foreigners, and not even liberals give a crap about what happens to them. Kamala were going after US citizens, often poor and/or POC. So in this BLM area I'd expect progressives to care at least somewhat about her past.. But guess not. "she's a strong candidate! she's a woman" is apparently at that matters. This goes for the  Buttigieg support too really, his past is super shady.

Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo on his second day in office.

Congress stopped him from doing it.

While I do consider failing to close Gitmo a failing of Obamas, I agree . . . it wasn't entirely his fault.  Republicans wanted to keep their extra-judicial torture facility open and got what they wanted.  But they wouldn't have been able to without a large chunk of support from the American people.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1596 on: December 04, 2019, 09:40:26 AM »
Uhh what? It was congress that ended up voting down any Gitmo closure funding. If anything Obama did everything he could through the executive alone moving a number of prisoners from Gitmo to the US. Heck the Obama admin was even just trying to buy more federal prison space and the GOP would claim that he was secretly trying to buy a Gitmo prisoner space. And it wasn't just the GOP half the dems wouldn't vote for gitmo closing either. Politicians just fear the blowback on that one.

Yes I am aware that the democrats are universally spineless and incompetent. So expecting them to achieve anything is laughable. "oh the mean republicans won't let us! not our fault I promise!"

Meanwhile the GOP has support of maybe a 1/3 of the US population (and shrinking) but they seem to be able to push their death-cult agenda through quite frequently. Their single-minded focus and effectiveness would be admirable, if it wasn't so evil.. Well i guess they failed on obamacare repeal? Ohwait they'll just gut that through the courts, executive orders, and their control of the state houses!

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1597 on: December 04, 2019, 09:48:56 AM »
Uhh what? It was congress that ended up voting down any Gitmo closure funding. If anything Obama did everything he could through the executive alone moving a number of prisoners from Gitmo to the US. Heck the Obama admin was even just trying to buy more federal prison space and the GOP would claim that he was secretly trying to buy a Gitmo prisoner space. And it wasn't just the GOP half the dems wouldn't vote for gitmo closing either. Politicians just fear the blowback on that one.

Yes I am aware that the democrats are universally spineless and incompetent. So expecting them to achieve anything is laughable. "oh the mean republicans won't let us! not our fault I promise!"

Meanwhile the GOP has support of maybe a 1/3 of the US population (and shrinking) but they seem to be able to push their death-cult agenda through quite frequently. Their single-minded focus and effectiveness would be admirable, if it wasn't so evil.. Well i guess they failed on obamacare repeal? Ohwait they'll just gut that through the courts and executive orders!

So who do you support for the Democratic candidate?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1155
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1598 on: December 04, 2019, 09:51:38 AM »
Uhh what? It was congress that ended up voting down any Gitmo closure funding. If anything Obama did everything he could through the executive alone moving a number of prisoners from Gitmo to the US. Heck the Obama admin was even just trying to buy more federal prison space and the GOP would claim that he was secretly trying to buy a Gitmo prisoner space. And it wasn't just the GOP half the dems wouldn't vote for gitmo closing either. Politicians just fear the blowback on that one.

Yes I am aware that the democrats are universally spineless and incompetent. So expecting them to achieve anything is laughable. "oh the mean republicans won't let us! not our fault I promise!"

Meanwhile the GOP has support of maybe a 1/3 of the US population (and shrinking) but they seem to be able to push their death-cult agenda through quite frequently. Their single-minded focus and effectiveness would be admirable, if it wasn't so evil.. Well i guess they failed on obamacare repeal? Ohwait they'll just gut that through the courts, executive orders, and their control of the state houses!

I'm not sure what you're complaining about then. So it is congress' fault because they're spineless, but also Obama because.... congress?

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1599 on: December 04, 2019, 10:02:05 AM »
Uhh what? It was congress that ended up voting down any Gitmo closure funding. If anything Obama did everything he could through the executive alone moving a number of prisoners from Gitmo to the US. Heck the Obama admin was even just trying to buy more federal prison space and the GOP would claim that he was secretly trying to buy a Gitmo prisoner space. And it wasn't just the GOP half the dems wouldn't vote for gitmo closing either. Politicians just fear the blowback on that one.

Yes I am aware that the democrats are universally spineless and incompetent. So expecting them to achieve anything is laughable. "oh the mean republicans won't let us! not our fault I promise!"

Meanwhile the GOP has support of maybe a 1/3 of the US population (and shrinking) but they seem to be able to push their death-cult agenda through quite frequently. Their single-minded focus and effectiveness would be admirable, if it wasn't so evil.. Well i guess they failed on obamacare repeal? Ohwait they'll just gut that through the courts and executive orders!

So who do you support for the Democratic candidate?

Curious why that matters? I can't criticize obama or any dem candidates unless I support a perfect candidate?