| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016
Member Since: 10/2/2011
Posts: 4,285
|
Someone NEW and TOUGH. Sanders, Warren, Harris and Booker are too old hat or too nice. They'd be FLATTENED.
Someone has to play the extreme cynic card as the Dems don't stand a chance otherwise.
Look, right now, it's got to be a young working class white man that can effectively blanket the Rust Belt. Sorry not sorry.
NO to Kander or Kaine either.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 14,905
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Espresso
Someone NEW and TOUGH. Sanders, Warren, Harris and Booker are too old hat or too nice. They'd be FLATTENED.
Someone has to play the extreme cynic card as the Dems don't stand a chance otherwise.
Look, right now, it's got to be a young working class white man that can effectively blanket the Rust Belt. Sorry not sorry.
NO to Kander or Kaine either.
|
that leaves exactly nobody
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 4,241
|
not here for yet another white man in office.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/29/2012
Posts: 13,597
|
Quote:
Originally posted by xxtinaxx
lol Please no Bernie. America isn't ready for extreme socialism.
|
I feel like after this super right administration, a super left president is not what we need. There would be too much changes in the matter of 8 years 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 14,905
|
me right now
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 14,905
|
Quote:
Originally posted by rivers
I feel like after this super right administration, a super left president is not what we need. There would be too much changes in the matter of 8 years |
lol that makes no sense. like there's literally no logic behind this
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 1,311
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Espresso
Someone NEW and TOUGH. Sanders, Warren, Harris and Booker are too old hat or too nice. They'd be FLATTENED.
Someone has to play the extreme cynic card as the Dems don't stand a chance otherwise.
Look, right now, it's got to be a young working class white man that can effectively blanket the Rust Belt. Sorry not sorry.
NO to Kander or Kaine either.
|
Kander has essentially everything you describe tho.
Maybe a bit too young and obviously losing his Senate race means he won't run anyway. But he had enourmous potential. Still does if he can get elected in Missouri in the future.
I kinda agree though, a younger Joe Biden (that preferably looked like he did  ) would be ideal if the Dems want to secure the Rust Belt again.
But, you have to remember - Clinton only just lost that Blue Wall. Trump defo didn't bulldoze the wall. He won WI, PA, and MI by very small margins. Clinton was an unpopular candidate. If someone like Kamala Harris can increase African American turnout, as well as get others on side simply by virtue of being a good candidate (which Clinton was not), then the Blue Wall should return back.
I feel like a lot of people are overestimating how difficult it should be to win WI, MI, and PA again. With the right candidate, it shouldn't. Love or hate her, but those unfavorabie rankings and how trustworthy (or rather not) would have been the difference between Clinton losing by them slim margins.
Get someone young and charismatic, who appears authentic (this is important) and who has a vision that people can tap into, and watch the Dems SMASH 2020. If you pick a bore like Warren, or someone who will be exposed like Booker, then, hello 8 years of Donald Trump
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by rivers
I feel like after this super right administration, a super left president is not what we need. There would be too much changes in the matter of 8 years |
This is how I feel, but I am thinking that's where we're going to go...
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 26,488
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/29/2012
Posts: 13,597
|
Quote:
Originally posted by lightstheyblindme
lol that makes no sense. like there's literally no logic behind this
|
If they repeal Obamacare, go to this new healthcare plan the Repubs are proposing then go to single payer health care in 8 years.... you don't think there will be any consequences to that? 
Potentially building a wall, intensive immigration reform then going back to leniency, pathway to citizenships.
De-regulate countless of energy regulations.... go back to regulating them and shutting down coal plants.
Take us off of NATO, the Paris Agreement, Iran Deal.... then somehow we'll need to revitalize those when our world relations could be the pits? 
There are countless of others. No ripple effects though right? 
This is what is ****** about Democrats and Republicans... they are almost complete opposites. Honestly at this point, I am completely fine with Democrats compromising with Republicans. If Dems win in 2020, I'd rather see them build off of Republicans, not completely strip everything away. I just don't see how the country can survive that.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 1,311
|
There is three ways 2020 will pan out tbh with depends what Dem candidates run - you gotta' remember that Booker, Tulsi, Harris, Castro etc are all young. They gotta' pick their moment.
Trump has an awesome first term and defies the odds. In this case he'll get elected again. The likes of Booker, Harris, Tulsi all sit it out and wait for 2024. Dems probably end up with someone older like Andrew Cuomo.
Trump has a below-average first term, but keeps a lot of his core support. If this is the case, it shouldn't be hard for the Dems to beat him. He'll still be as unpopular as he is now (which, is very unpopular) - I'm not sure if he'll run or not in this scenario.
Trump has a terrible first term riddled with controversies and it looks like the Dems could field anyone and they'll beat him. In this case, Trump won't win. It'll hurt his ego too much to lose, and if he knows he will lose - then he won't bother. And at 74 he will start slowing down. Pence or Ryan will probably him. A lot of Dems will jump into the race if this is the case.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 14,905
|
Quote:
Originally posted by rivers
If they repeal Obamacare, go to this new healthcare plan the Repubs are proposing then go to single payer health care in 8 years.... you don't think there will be any consequences to that?
Potentially building a wall, intensive immigration reform then going back to leniency, pathway to citizenships.
De-regulate countless of energy regulations.... go back to regulating them and shutting down coal plants.
Take us off of NATO, the Paris Agreement, Iran Deal.... then somehow we'll need to revitalize those when our world relations could be the pits?
There are countless of others. No ripple effects though right?
This is what is ****** about Democrats and Republicans... they are almost complete opposites. Honestly at this point, I am completely fine with Democrats compromising with Republicans. If Dems win in 2020, I'd rather see them build off of Republicans, not completely strip everything away. I just don't see how the country can survive that. |
(1) they won't repeal Obamacare entirely, they'll leave in place the things that are very popular; also unless Dems win back the Senate and the House, single-payer healthcare will be impossible to accomplish (and even if they do it will be very difficult)
(2) this is basically what happens every time a new party takes control and it's never disastrous just because it's a drastic change; the only time it's disastrous is when bad policies are replacing good policies. it just doesn't make sense to say that because we're about to be living in a very regressive administration the next democratic administration should not push a Progressive agenda. If Democrats take on an incrementalist approach toward public policy then they will be at a disadvantage because Republicans will not use the same approach, they'll continue trying to gut everything the Democrats do the second they get into power.
There is so much evidence that the Democratic base is yearning for the party to move in a true Progressive direction and rejecting the gradualism that you are baselessly claiming would be the best direction for the party - so just in terms of exciting the base and winning elections, this is probably not a very good platform to run on. More important than that, though, is that keeping Trump's bad pro-corporate, pro-upper class policies in place just because you don't want to shake things up or introduce too much change at one time just doesn't make sense. Like I don't understand why the incrementalist mindset toward crafting policy is inherently better than implementing a lot of change at once, especially when Republicans will be doing the same.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Bernie "extreme socialism" 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/29/2012
Posts: 13,597
|
Quote:
Originally posted by lightstheyblindme
(1) they won't repeal Obamacare entirely, they'll leave in place the things that are very popular; also unless Dems win back the Senate and the House, single-payer healthcare will be impossible to accomplish (and even if they do it will be very difficult)
(2) this is basically what happens every time a new party takes control and it's never disastrous just because it's a drastic change; the only time it's disastrous is when bad policies are replacing good policies. it just doesn't make sense to say that because we're about to be living in a very regressive administration the next democratic administration should not push a Progressive agenda. If Democrats take on an incrementalist approach toward public policy then they will be at a disadvantage because Republicans will not use the same approach, they'll continue trying to gut everything the Democrats do the second they get into power.
There is so much evidence that the Democratic base is yearning for the party to move in a true Progressive direction and rejecting the gradualism that you are baselessly claiming would be the best direction for the party - so just in terms of exciting the base and winning elections, this is probably not a very good platform to run on. More important than that, though, is that keeping Trump's bad pro-corporate, pro-upper class policies in place just because you don't want to shake things up or introduce too much change at one time just doesn't make sense. Like I don't understand why the incrementalist mindset toward crafting policy is inherently better than implementing a lot of change at once, especially when Republicans will be doing the same.
|
I don't know why you're calling my claims baseless when yours doesn't provide any substance either. It's just my opinion, and it's something that I would like to see. I would love to see a progressive agenda pushed but the country is so split right now that'd I'd rather see everyone work together. Sure that's just fantasy and it's probably not where it's heading but I believe an incremental platform is the best way to accomplish things for LONG term benefits.
Take climate change for example. If Dems can compromise with Repubs on regulations, I find that to be progress more than a tightrope competition going back and forth until the day I die.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 23,857
|
Kander won't get anywhere unless his message is on point as ****. I'd just see him as another O'Malley in 2020.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jpow
I don't like Kamala.
|
I like her, but I just don't think she's ready to be a presidential candidate yet. Maybe she'll prove herself over the next 3 years but we really need someone who can begin to rebuild the New Deal coalition. Again, she'd make an excellent VP choice.
But first we have to win 2018 and ride that momentum into 2020. Dems need to run on the idea that republicans will take away social security, medicare (if they aren't already destroyed), the terrible economic policies that will likely take place, etc.
Let's not even get into abortion rights. Dems need to spend the next year creating a clear message going forward to run on. Start traveling back into rural communities and educating people.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Are people really suggesting Kander? He's 35.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 23,857
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
This is truly a mess. People said she couldn't excite the base yet she pulled in Obama numbers. 
And then she loses the presidency by less than 100,000 votes split between three states.
It's tragic. |
I'm still roiled from this. Basically Hillary's message was okay but she didn't reach out to the right people/states. o.e
But then I just look at how the Congress went and sigh.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/29/2012
Posts: 13,597
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
Are people really suggesting Kander? He's 35. |
That's when you know there's literally no one viable for Dems 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dessy Fenix
I'm still roiled from this. Basically Hillary's message was okay but she didn't reach out to the right people/states. o.e
But then I just look at how the Congress went and sigh.
|
mte. Dems problems go deeper than presidential elections so while she stood a good chance at winning the presidency, it's still a bad sign everywhere else for dems.
I like Keith Eillison for DNC chair, but I'm kinda here for Howard Dean or Thomas Perez tbh. Howard Dean did a fantastic job after the 2004 election and he's able to get those working class voters. He's not new and I have some problems with him, but he understands the problem and has experience fixing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
