Democrat 2020

**Kagemusha** · 01-26-2019, 09:18

Nancy Pelosi.

**Hooahguy** · 01-26-2019, 18:29

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Nancy Pelosi.

Well if both Trump and Pence are rolled up, then that might actually happen. Though the likelihood of both of them resigning is very small.

But back on topic-

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Interesting tangent to rile the thread: In 2016 African American turnout for Dems was noticeably depressed. The turnout margin between 2012 and 2016 Democratic African American votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, and perhaps Florida and Pennsylvania was higher than the margin of Trump's victory in each of those states. (N.b. Black turnout was higher under Obama than pretty much ever)

Part of this is why I think Harris might be the best choice. Sanders has already shown that he does terrible with minorities, Warren kinda ruined her chances with the whole DNA test, and Gillibrand I think just doesnt have that pull that Harris does.

**Husar** · 01-26-2019, 18:37

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Nancy Pelosi.

Why? The only ones I could really get behind are Sanders and Warren.

Don't know Gillibrand and Harris very well. Pelosi always appears somehow "fake" to me. Also married to an investment banker.

**Kagemusha** · 01-26-2019, 20:53

Originally Posted by Husar

Why? The only ones I could really get behind are Sanders and Warren.

Don't know Gillibrand and Harris very well. Pelosi always appears somehow "fake" to me. Also married to an investment banker.

She is by far the most accomplished Democrat at this point. Two times elected speaker of the house. First since 1955. A woman and yes from establishment, they dont vote commies in office at US Hus, now do they?

She trumped Trump hands down with the border wall issue and Trump cave in at this favorite idea. Me thinks this struggle between Trump and the democrats ruled house will increasingly personalize into these two, but lets see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SraasldX-4

**Husar** · 01-26-2019, 22:42

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

yes from establishment, they dont vote commies in office at US Hus, now do they?

That's exactly why they have all these problems. And they continue to (not) do that, expecting different results. Wasn't that the definition of insanity?

You can't just expect certain results as givens in politics if you actually want to change politics. To change, change something and stop talking about how nothing will change. They teach that at every elite university in the US! But when it comes to politics, then it is all despair, retreat and defeat?

**Hooahguy** · 01-26-2019, 21:13

Originally Posted by Husar

Why? The only ones I could really get behind are Sanders and Warren.

Don't know Gillibrand and Harris very well. Pelosi always appears somehow "fake" to me. Also married to an investment banker.

LOL Pelosi isnt going to run, shes happy being speaker, and the only way she becomes POTUS through the line of succession. Though to be fair she would probably make a good president, judging by how she handled the shutdown.

Sanders wont find the going as easy as it was in 2015-16. He is much more of a known quantity and the other candidates wont have any qualms about tearing him down like Hillary was afraid to. Bernie does terribly with minorities, and the 2016 primary shows that, and if the Dems want to win, they need to appeal to minorities. My personal belief is that Sanders has a pretty good chance of getting Trump re-elected, considering that it seems as if he attacks Democrats more vigorously than he attacks the right. He did the same in 2016 and theres a good chance it will happen again in 2020.

And if not Bernie, this guy will get Trump elected again if he runs as an independent.

**Kagemusha** · 01-26-2019, 22:03

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

LOL Pelosi isnt going to run, shes happy being speaker, and the only way she becomes POTUS through the line of succession. Though to be fair she would probably make a good president, judging by how she handled the shutdown.

Sanders wont find the going as easy as it was in 2015-16. He is much more of a known quantity and the other candidates wont have any qualms about tearing him down like Hillary was afraid to. Bernie does terribly with minorities, and the 2016 primary shows that, and if the Dems want to win, they need to appeal to minorities. My personal belief is that Sanders has a pretty good chance of getting Trump re-elected, considering that it seems as if he attacks Democrats more vigorously than he attacks the right. He did the same in 2016 and theres a good chance it will happen again in 2020.

And if not Bernie, this guy will get Trump elected again if he runs as an independent.

I think you are right and she might not want to run at her advanced age, she is 78 years old . Still cant think of a better candidate at this point, but like you said, maybe she will will inherit the office.

**Montmorency** · 01-26-2019, 23:22

Since keeping mum is hard for me...

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Well if both Trump and Pence are rolled up, then that might actually happen. Though the likelihood of both of them resigning is very small.

But back on topic-

Part of this is why I think Harris might be the best choice. Sanders has already shown that he does terrible with minorities, Warren kinda ruined her chances with the whole DNA test, and Gillibrand I think just doesnt have that pull that Harris does.

Aha, but as far as I can tell this was always something of a myth. In a recent Gallup poll Sanders had a favorability lead among non-white voters of 15 points, and it's nothing new. Sanders was handicapped in the primaries because of lack of name recognition. That won't be a problem anymore, as you say below.

Not many will hold Warren's ancestry gaffe against her besides Republicans, pundits, and some activists who were already dissatisfied with her policies. Men hate Warren, but most of the plausible contenders are women. The one notable aspect is that it signals a certain lack of acumen - but we don't need to speculate, we're about to see everyone's decision-making on display.

Exactly why I said, don't hold your assumptions too dear. Wait for primary season for matters to unfold. Don't feel locked into a candidate yet (preferences are OK).

Originally Posted by Husar

Why? The only ones I could really get behind are Sanders and Warren.

Don't know Gillibrand and Harris very well. Pelosi always appears somehow "fake" to me. Also married to an investment banker.

Warren-Harris-Gillibrand are ~ as candidates. It's just a matter of competing niches.

Warren: Taxation and finance reform with an aperitif of class warfare
Harris: Criminal justice reform
Gillibrand: Gender issues

By "niche" I mean marginal emphasis. Of course all of them are offering something on all of the above. Gillibrand appears to support slightly stronger bail reform than Harris does, Harris proposes middle class tax credits on a scale Warren doesn't, etc. They all support Medicare for All at least. Otherwise, Warren is pretty center-left. After all, she does admire capitalism and exited the Republican Party in the '90s because she didn't think they were correctly supporting the market. Don't credit Republican glib provocations like "The Kulaks Must Be Liquidated as a Class." (Billionaires aren't kulaks, they're royals.)

Everyone will go further left as the season advances. So, wait and see.

**Hooahguy** · 01-27-2019, 00:06

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Since keeping mum is hard for me...

Aha, but as far as I can tell this was always something of a myth. In a recent Gallup poll Sanders had a favorability lead among non-white voters of 15 points, and it's nothing new. Sanders was handicapped in the primaries because of lack of name recognition. That won't be a problem anymore, as you say below.

Not many will hold Warren's ancestry gaffe against her besides Republicans, pundits, and some activists who were already dissatisfied with her policies. Men hate Warren, but most of the plausible contenders are women. The one notable aspect is that it signals a certain lack of acumen - but we don't need to speculate, we're about to see everyone's decision-making on display.

Exactly why I said, don't hold your assumptions too dear. Wait for primary season for matters to unfold. Don't feel locked into a candidate yet (preferences are OK).

I definitely agree, its way too early to tell but according to a very recent RCP average, Biden wipes the floor with everyone else. But thats because name recognition is king at this stage. Again as you said, way too early to make any real judgement. I will vote against Trump whoever it is, even if its Bernie. And for what its worth, my analysis is coming from 538 who I think does a pretty good job at judging strengths and weakensses. As he says in the Sanders section, its not about overall favorability, its about how that compares to other candidates. I recall an article saying that had minority turnout in 2016 been nearly equal to 2012, Clinton would have won.

Right now my biggest worry is that Sanders is going to cause as much hurt as he did in 2016. At precisely the time when the opposition to Trump and the GOP needs to unite, Sanders is out there right now saying stronger words against the Democrats than the GOP.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 01-27-2019, 08:12

Once again, California liberals gonna bring the rest of this country back to civilization.

Harris 2020.

**Husar** · 01-27-2019, 12:58

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Once again, California liberals gonna bring the rest of this country back to civilization.

Harris 2020.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...cop-prosecutor

If she really was the first south asian woman in congress, then she can't become president anyway, because....eh nevermind. Either way, the USA are so far away from civilization...

It's almost as if Democrats were aiming for the compromise from the start again, didn't Monty make a thread about why that is a terrible idea?

**rory_20_uk** · 01-27-2019, 20:30

Especially in the USA, the President is a figurehead to inspire hope and the soft power of the USA. So persons such as Pelosi are definitely required to work mainly behind the scenes in counting votes and (when required) making back room deals and twisting arms since the democratic process is far from perfect.

I would hope that the next president can try to drag both sides back closer to the centre and manage to get things doe rather than beating their chests and blocking "the other". The USA has significant issues to address at home (such as Infrastructure and prison reform - perhaps spend money from the latter on the former) for two relatively non-contentious ones; a coherent foreign policy might be a nice change as well which stops turning taxpayers dollars in to brown corpses.