I'm Going to Say It! "Every Single Democratic Presidential Nominee is Unelectable"

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | I'm Going to Say It! "Every Single Democratic Presidential Nominee is Unelectable"

Viewing 17 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #54527
      xyzse
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,696

      I want to be wrong about this, but the Democrats really want to lose this one, since they can’t seem to accept any one further to the left of Dick Cheney to win.  I am also posting this, just because too many VDs say that Bernie Sanders is unelectable.

      This is coming from someone who is trying to be fair, and looking at things as objectively as possible.

      I will start with the fact that Trump is much harder to beat, now that he is an incumbent.  As much as he lies, as much as there are clusterfucks with his management, since he is one of the best cases described on this video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeAEFEXvcBg

      Be that as it may, he projects confidence, and he actually knows his audience.  Most of the Democrats tend to sink to his level, and get obliterated since unlike Teflon Don, they don’t know how to defend themselves or have a record to stand on.

      I’ll make a quick run-down(alpha order):

      • Biden – Dude is not even running.  Probably shouldn’t.  His time is over.  He can’t run like Hillary, so he would borrow from the Obama playbook.  Problem is, he has too much of a record.  Not as bad as Hillz, but he’s not going to enthuse the ones who sat out 2016.  He might be competitive, but too easy to derail, and he does not actually have a solid grasp on the issues, and insulted Millenials who he needs.
      • Booker – Spartacus made a fool of himself early.  We barely hear about him now.  His policies have evolved, and he now seems to mean what he says when it comes to the issues.  There have been quite a few proposals that he has made lately that I can get behind.  Should I thank Rosario Dawson for this?  Still, the chances of him winning the nomination is slim to none.  In the General Election, I see him floundering since unlike Tulsi and Bernie, I think he’ll immediately suck the Corporate teat, and when that happens, it would feel like a betrayal.  Then again, maybe he never stopped?  I’m not sure.  This is probably the only reason I have not ruled him out.
      • Buttigieg – Now that he’s on the rise, we are getting to know more about him.  I have not been impressed by him, from now as well as when he ran for the DNC chairmanship.  There are secretly recorded tapes on him, about the firing of the 1st African American Police chief in his area.  This is a breaking news story, and so I do not know how it will go.
      • Castro – Do I really have to say anything about this fool?  No chance in hell, and he’ll probably just be told to go back south of the border.
      • Delaney – He was my Congressman.  He is also one of the first people to declare candidacy.  There is a reason he’s not gaining any traction.
      • Gabbard – As much as I like her, they will slap her down with her anti-war stances (which I agree with).  She has a lot of grace in doing so, but they have demonized her is so many ways when she has been holding a principled stand.  She has cross-over appeal, and I think when she’s campaigning if she won the nomination, she’d do well, but she’d have to contend with both Trump and the backstabbing VDs.
      • Gillibrand – Too Right for Progessives, while Too Left for VDs.  She also is currently hated for her role in taking down Franken.  I don’t see it working.
      • Gravel – Not running to win, I want him in the debates.
      • Harris – Her record as a California Prosecutor, what she’s done with inmates, her shifting stances on Marijuana, the way she threatened parents jail-time for truancy, not prosecuting certain rich folk, and I can go, on and on, has torpedoed her run.  She will not get the Black Vote, just by virtue of how many people she has kept in jail, even those who were proven innocent.  That she could have reduced prison sentences, but declined due to calling them cheap labor is disgusting.  That can and will be used against her.
      • Hickenlooper – I am not going here, but this dude is a dumbass in the same level as Delaney or more.  Well, more, and I don’t think I need to go there.
      • Inslee – Barely hear anything about this person.  The fact that I don’t know makes his chances slim to none.  Not to mention that when I read the name, I misgendered him.  I apologize.
      • Klobuchar – Nope, and too much to the right.  Republican-lite will not fly.
      • Messam – No clue who this dude is.  Next!
      • O’Rourke – BetoMax, the wannabe Kennedy still has nothing to say.  He has no actual positions, and lost to “Ted Mudda-effing Nobody Likes Cruz”.  Can’t win.
      • Ryan – Who?  No.
      • Sanders – Like Tulsi, he has to contend both Trump and backstabbing VDs.  Even if he is the most popular, earns the most in individual donors, they still don’t want to call him the front runner.
      • Swalwell – Ditto Ryan and Messam.
      • Warren – Had the dumb childish play with Trump, tussling on her Native American ancestry.  She can get some of the Progressives more enthused about her, but I’m not sure it is enough.
      • Williamson – Don’t know her.
      • Yang – I like his ideas, but he’s not running for the sake of winning.

      So that is a quick run-down on all the candidates I can think of.  Every single one has a reason they can’t win, but regular VDs will have a harder time, since many are done with their inability to stick to a story.

      Trump is the same way, but he knows his audience.  That is a huge advantage on his part.

      I want to be wrong… but VDs are trying real hard to ensure that Bernie is unelectable.  I mean, that is their prerogative, it’s fine, makes sense for them.  It is galling however, that their attacks are dumb, nonsensical and not issue based.

      They kept the wounds from 2016 flowing.

      <hr />

      On Edit:  Just if I was not clear.  The reason I posted this is to show that I think Bernie is currently has the best chance.  VDs are creating the conditions and smears to ensure he does not win the primaries and if he does, lose the general election.  Lastly, the Flavor-of-the-Month darlings look ugly as soon as the spotlight hits them(like drunks waking up to a mistake).  Unlike Sanders who is now a known quantity yet kept most of his popularity.

    • #54531
      Jan Boehmerman
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 3,717

      Remember:  Under the NEW “FAIRER” DNC RULES….. the SUPER DELEGATES can only come into play IF no candidate has reached a MAJORITY before the CONVENTION.

      Figure the odds of THAT happening with the shitload of big money sponsored candidates!

      The system is rigged already!  The DNC won’t even have to provide the debate questions to their pick ahead of time.

      • #54535
        Hobbit709
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 2,105

        The DNC doesn’t want to win. If they won, they’d have to produce and be held accountable for failures.

        I don't waste my time teaching pigs to sing.

      • #54549
        xyzse
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,696

        @janboehmermann

        Yep!  They’re trying to make the rules as Undemocratic as possible.

        But of course VDs are ok with it, since they seem to follow their leadership like sheeple.  The mark of Authoritarian conservatives.

      • #54940
        Jim Lane
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 627

        You write, “Remember:  Under the NEW ‘FAIRER’ DNC RULES….. the SUPER DELEGATES can only come into play IF no candidate has reached a MAJORITY before the CONVENTION.”

        First, I think that could happen.  Last cycle, the Republicans started with 17 candidates, and winnowed it down to one even before the last primary.

        On the Democratic side, it’s slightly harder because the party’s rules prohibit winner-take-all primaries.  Nevertheless, at most or all of the stages, a candidate must get at least 15% of the vote to get any delegates.  There’s just not room for ten candidates to get 15% each.  As happened with both major parties last time, candidates will drop out along the way.  Some of them won’t even make it to Iowa.

        It wouldn’t surprise me if, with several primaries still to go, there are only two remaining candidates with any real chance of winning — one progressive and one centrist.  The supporters of the eliminated candidates will line up behind one or the other, and someone will have a majority of the pledged delegates by the end of the last primary.

        Another possibility is that no candidate has a majority at that point, but one is cobbled together.  For example, if Bernie again gets about 40% of the delegates, and after him it’s Biden 30%, Harris 20%, miscellaneous others 10%, the obvious deal would be a Biden-Harris ticket with Biden promising not to run in 2024.

        People here might scream about dealmaking but that’s misguided.  I hope Bernie is over 50%.  Nevertheless, if the centrists have the majority of the pledged delegates (supers not entering into it), then a centrist ticket would be a fair outcome.  I wouldn’t favor a rules change to allow nomination by plurality.  It would be undemocratic for a minority faction to win because they’re united behind one candidate but the other side is split among several.

        • #54963
          game meat
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 1,331

          @jimlane

          I really don’t see the logic in denying the candidate with the largest percentage of delegates a spot on the ticket. Anyone supporting that candidate, whether it is Sanders or someone else, is never going to see that as a fair outcome. However, it is an excellent way to ensure that a decent chunk of the spurned candidate’s supporters will sit out the general, but that isn’t the goal, or at least it shouldn’t be.

          I think they would be insane to nominate someone other than the person who gets the most delegates. Unless, of course, they want to lose.

          • #54969
            Jim Lane
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 627

            You write, “I really don’t see the logic in denying the candidate with the largest percentage of delegates a spot on the ticket.”

            The logic is that, in a big field, “largest percentage” of the delegates isn’t meaningful.  Right now, in many polls, Biden has the largest percentage of support, but still usually below 30%.  If those numbers hold up, do you want him on the ticket?

            Or consider this scenario, not a likely one but offered as a thought experiment.  O’Rourke catches fire and drives out the other centrists.  Of the candidates who’ve run before, Biden fades early; Bernie loses some of his previous supporters to Gabbard but still does respectably.  Going into the convention, the pledged delegates are: O’Rourke 40%, Bernie 30%, Gabbard 20%, miscellaneous others 10%.  With O’Rourke having the largest share, would you insist that he get a spot on the ticket?  I wouldn’t.  By my logic, the obvious deal is a Sanders-Gabbard ticket.  Tulsi’s delegates follow her lead in voting for Bernie on the first ballot, and then she’s the VP.

            Your concern is that the O’Rourke supporters are “never going to see that as a fair outcome.”  As to many of them, yeah, you’re right.  Most people’s ideas of fairness look more to outcomes rather than to process (hint: the latter position is the correct one).  If it’s Bernie 40% – O’Rourke 30% – Harris 20% and the O’Rourke-Harris combo gets the ticket in a deal, the O’Rourke supporters will think it’s fair, and the Berniecrats here on JPR will be pissed off.  If it’s O’Rourke 40% – Bernie 30% – Gabbard 20%, and again the second- and third-place finishers combine for a majority, then the reactions will be exactly reversed.  In the latter case, if the first-place finisher O’Rourke gets the nomination against the wishes of the progressive majority, then people who consider O’Rourke too conservative will suddenly understand my point.

            • #54984
              game meat
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 1,331

              @jimlane

              “Your concern is that the O’Rourke supporters are “never going to see that as a fair outcome.”  As to many of them, yeah, you’re right.  Most people’s ideas of fairness look more to outcomes rather than to process (hint: the latter position is the correct one). “

              That’s true, that the O’Rourke scenario would be a fair outcome based on the rules. The thing is, like you said, most people’s idea of fairness would view it differently. If the perception of the process itself is that the process is unfair, then it becomes difficult to get people to view the outcome resulting from that process as a fair one. A scenario where the candidate who got the most delegates ends up being denied a spot on the ticket is just bad optics plain and simple. Public perception is important. Getting that candidate’s supporters to support a nominee who performed worse is a tough sell, imo.

              One thing to keep in mind is that there is going to be ideological overlap with some candidates. There is not always a strict center/progressive divide. For instance, Harris voters, while more likely to be more conservative than Sanders voters, will probably lean more left than Biden voters on average. In your Sanders 40%, Biden 30%, Harris 20% scenario, you may find many Harris voters not being happy with Biden. Maybe some of them liked Sanders well enough, but thought he was too old or they wanted to vote for a women. Who knows?

              No matter how this turns out. There are two things we can count on:

              Centrists and party leaders will not be happy with a progressive nominee.

              Progressives will not be happy with a centrist nominee.

               

    • #54537
      Bearian
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 617

      Kshama Savant, Seattle city Council, said the Democratic Party would rather elect a Repug that a Progressive.

      • #54552
        xyzse
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,696

        @bearian Pretty much the leadership does, with the complicity of the media.

        Currently, I’d say Sanders has the best chance, but that can easily change.  It’s pretty impressive how Biden, who has not even declared is still considered somewhat of a front-runner.

        They’re flavor of the week these folks.  Any-one-other than Sanders… and Tulsi… -coughs-

      • #54606
        Enthusiast
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 4,686

        Kshama Savant has it right.

        I would like to remind you that U.S. health insurance companies do not contribute anything to health care. They are only a PARASITIC middle man receiving an undeserved cut of "FREE MONEY".

        Me

      • #54789
        ravensong
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 2,222

        She’s correct.

        The New Democrats are Third Way corporate oligarchists, who, like Republicans, consider corporate profits and continued control of our government by wealthy private interests to be more important than the primary needs, health, well being, and happiness of all human beings, individually and collectively.

        Sick puppies, with twisted value systems. They’re going to destroy our planet in the name of “business as usual”.

        “A lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good, just because it's accepted by a majority.” ~ Booker T. Washington

        The truth is, there’s no such thing as being “anti-Fascist.” Either you are a decent human being with a conscience, or you are a fascist.
        ~ Unknown

    • #54541
      elias39
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,244

      Also, I just heard this morning that trump has something like $70-80 million in his ‘war chest’ already. Not liking That too much.

    • #54543
      JonLP
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,691

      Who is saying Bernie is unelectable? Do they want the young and non voter vote?

      Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn Might Create a Revolution
      Just as Reagan and Thatcher rose together, perhaps so too will Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn.
      By Robert L. Borosage

      In the 1990s, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair came into power within a few years of each other. Clinton’s New Democrats and Blair’s New Labour pushed their parties to tack to prevailing conservative winds. Both proclaimed a new Third Way (ignoring the reality that social democracy was the original third way between communism and capitalism). Both helped consolidate a global economic order designed by, for, and of the multinationals.

      Now a fundamental reordering could again be the result of parallel elections on either side of the Atlantic Ocean. The UK and the United States suffer many of the same maladies—savage inequality, a political economy that does not work for most people, devastation of manufacturing sectors, and a stark contrast between the financial center and the provinces. There is also a corporate culture in both countries dominated by finance and shareholder interests and characterized by short-term, predatory plunder. Both countries have a young generation likely to fare far worse than its parents. Both suffer an establishment that is demoralized and bereft of ideas. Rising popular discontent has taken perverse expressions: Brexit in Britain, Trump in the United States.

      Hence the left is on the rise, driven by ideas, grassroots energy, and authenticity. Corbyn was lifted to leadership in the Labour Party by an unprecedented mobilization and expansion in party membership. Sanders came from idiosyncratic obscurity to front-runner in the 2020 race largely because of his 2016 primary run, which was fueled significantly by a surge of energy from young voters.

      (Snip)

      In the United States, voters in the Democratic Party will have a choice. Some, like former vice president Joe Biden and Senator Amy Klobuchar, will argue essentially that the basic issue is getting rid of Trump and returning to decency, while others, like Sanders and Warren, assert that committing to a bold agenda not only is vital for the country but also is the best strategy to move Trump out of the way. That will happen only if progressives continue to push hard to drive the debate.

      https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-and-jeremy-corbyn-might-create-a-revolution

      Let this radicalize you rather than lead you to despair - Mariame Kaba

    • #54547
      mmonk
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 900

      The Democrats indeed play everything wrong in politics. There is though, an increasing divergence in the price of equities and corporate profits beginning to come into play. How that plays out is anyone’s guess along with the timing of its consequences.

      Fear not the path of Truth for the lack of People walking on it. - RFK

    • #54553
      game meat
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,331

      Well, they’ve certainly learned nothing from 2016, that’s for sure. They seem to be doubling or tripling down on everything the Clinton campaign did. You would think they would run away from that disaster, but instead they seem to view it as a model to be emulated.

      Still catering to the socially liberal/fiscally moderate electorate, despite study after study showing that’s a small percentage of voters.

      Still being deliberately obtuse and jumping back and forth on popular policy positions (healthcare etc,).

      Still running id politics despite the fact that the pandering did not even get turnout from the groups they court last time, and it just irritates everyone else.

      Still acting like the only thing anyone cares about is defeating Trump.

      Still underestimating Trump, assuming they’ll beat him effortlessly.

      Still lumping all Trump voters into the “basket of deplorables,” acting as if Obama to Trump voters don’t exist. Maybe if they just call them racists a few more times, then they’ll come around, I guess.

      Still treating the more progressive wing of the party like unwanted stepchildren, assuming they will all come out to vote for them anyway.

      It’s all the same stuff they did when they lost. If at first you don’t succeed, try again, I suppose. I still think Sanders has a chance as long as he can effectively distance himself from them rather than try to meet them half way.

    • #54562
      bazukhov
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,913

      Disagree.  Anyone running as Democrat on that list can be elected against Trump.  Thankfully, no one named Clinton is running or that would be chancy.

      Tell me, great captain, how do the angels sleep when the devil leaves his porch light on? Tom Waites

      • #54799
        ravensong
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 2,222

        Up until very recently, I thought that as well.  I thought a stray dog running as a D could beat Trump in 2020.  But with each passing day, the New Dems seem to wander around aimlessly in circles in that phony Big Tent that they are so proud of, that Big Tent where Bernie and Progressives are considered second class citizens, and are treated with hostility, as enemies, and not allies.

        They have no clear, positive agenda, it’s all about “defeat Trump” and “stop Bernie and progressives”.  Other than “defeat Trump” and “stop Bernie and progressives”, their agenda appears to be maintain the status quo of business as usual.  They are not exciting, they are not fun, they are not imaginative, they are not creative, they are putting forth no constructive solutions to the critical, life threatening problems we all face. Instead, it’s stop Bernie and progressives, beat Trump, and maintain the business as usual course down the right center of the toll road to hell.

        Blech. Stodgy, boring old empty Third Way Wall St suits selling, plain, cold, week old Cream of Wheat that nobody wants.

        Bernie is the only candidate with momentum and mass appeal, and a sincere agenda that is focused on doing great things, real things, for the people of this country.  And the New Dems hate him for his pro-human being agenda, and are already aggressively attacking him, who is the actual Democratic candidate who at this time appears to have the best chance to defeat Trump. The same stupid, contradictory strategy they used in 2016, when they lost everything.

        By aggressively attacking Bernie and progressives, the New Democrats are once again shooting themselves in the face, and are on course to do what Vichy Democrats have always done best….

        Snatching soul crushing, heartbreaking defeat from the jaws of certain glorious victory.

        “A lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good, just because it's accepted by a majority.” ~ Booker T. Washington

        The truth is, there’s no such thing as being “anti-Fascist.” Either you are a decent human being with a conscience, or you are a fascist.
        ~ Unknown

      • #54803
        xyzse
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,696

        @bazukhov

        Let me simply say… I hope you’re right.

        I consider Sanders having the best slim chance.  They are constantly chipping away at it though.

        At the moment, they are doing “Flavor of the Month”.  It has been Booker, Kamala, Biden, Beto, and now Buttigieg.  Each one rises, only for people to get to know them, and suddenly flounder.  Buttigieg is the April one, and he’s now being looked at more intensely, and already has a controversy under him.

      • #54923
        Satan
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 3,847

        It’s true that Hillary is not running, and I’d say there’s zero chance that she would jump into an already crowded clown bus before Iowa.

        On the other horn…… imagine a scenario where you go to the 2020 convention with no candidate who has a majority of delegates – 50%+1 (whatever the actual number is there).

        Bernie probably has more than any of the others, but the one thing the rest of them agree on is that they can’t allow Bernie to be the nominee. What they can’t agree on is which one of them should get the (corporatist) party endorsement, since they all have huge egos.

        At this point, the stupidelegates propose the idea of a “unity” candidate that all sides can support. Enter the Queen of the Weathervanes, ascending to the throne at the convention without lifting a single finger on the 2020 campaign.

        Would the Bernie delegates go for that? Hopefully not, but if they had everybody else on board, it might not matter.

        So when you see failed candidates who usually would be gone after Iowa or New Hampshire being propped up by corporate money to continue their divisive primary, you’ll know who’s really going to benefit from it. Hillary may not be “running”, but she still could lose a third election.

        Yeah, it’s a stretch. But I’m the Devil, so I dream up scenarios to torment people all day everyday. It’s in the job description!

        "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable". - John F. Kennedy

    • #54565
      Blue Meany
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 209

      I think you are probably wrong, but the polls do suggest that at the moment.  Bernie has lost 15% of his popularity among all voters since January when the smears began to escalate.  Trump’s popularity has actually gone up in that time to 46% or 47%, which is remarkable since his main accomplishments were shutting down the government, creating a border crisis, bringing us to the edge of war in multiple locations, and engaging in stochastic terrorism.   But polls shift quickly at this stage of the election, so it may not mean too much.  However, it is pretty scary that almost half of American approve of Trump’s governance.  I do think, at this point, Sanders has the best chance of beating him, but if he doesn’t win on the first ballot at the Convention we’re screwed.

      It will be interesting to see how the polls show him doing in the rust belt, where corporate Dems insist that only Biden can beat Trump.  Of course, they said the same thing about Hillary in 2016, but it’s time to forget about that and move on.

      • #54808
        xyzse
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,696

        @bluemeany

        Oh, I am hoping I am wrong.  I am mostly showing, that all of these candidates are not perfect.  That the one who is most electable, “Bernie Sanders”, even if he has issues, does not compare to the issues the others have because at least, he’s a known quantity, his popularity and electability has remained relatively the same, unlike the others who as soon as you place scrutiny on them, seems to just flop.

    • #54569
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,751

      I think Bernie is the only one who has a real chance.  I like Tulsi, would consider Warren… and Williamson, maybe, too.  I dont believe any of them could win though.

      The first obstacle for any of them is winning the candidacy.  The super delegates will not likely support Sanders.  Their pick would more like be Biden, or possibly Harris.

      Beating Trump, I think, will require majority support for Bernie in the first round (over 50%).  If the primaries were more open to the public I’d feel better about his chances….

      As of right now, I do not like the way things look.  It would be wise not to underestimate Trump… again…

    • #54577
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 17,986

      From what I’ve seen thus far, Bernie would definitely beat Trump if he is the nominee. Plus, there are two more things that could happen that we know of which would shift the balance in favor of almost any Democrat, but give Bernie a crushing win.

      The first is a recession, which is probable, and always hurts the incumbent. The second is the possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade. That would energize nonvoters like nothing else, and could destroy the Republican Party in large swathes of the country. The Democratic candidate could run on the plank of legalizing abortion at the federal level through legislation, applicable to the states under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and it’s game over.

      Unless that candidate is Hillary or probably Biden, because he’d figure out some way to royally fuck up.

      Conclusion: It’s way too early to be prognosticating too much.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.--Harry Truman

      • #54812
        xyzse
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,696

        @ohiobarbarian

        Hey there.  I agree with you, but really, the point of this post is to show that every single one of the candidates have issues.  Bernie is the one who seems to have the best chance, but VDs are trying to get rid of him and ensure he does not win the primaries.  Not just that, like I keep saying to others, their Flavor of the Month darlings look ugly as soon as the spotlight hits them.

        • #54839
          Ohio Barbarian
          Moderator
          • Total Posts: 17,986

          “Flavor of the month candidates.”

          That’s funny. It’s also accurate.

          It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

          Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.--Harry Truman

          • #54849
            xyzse
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 1,696

            @ohiobarbarian

            OMG, I saw your post about Buttigieg calling him “Great Gay Hope”, I mean, I didn’t even want to go there, since he WAS initially good enough to start out without playing the “Identity” game.  Then, that all changed with this Pence row, and more incoming.

            Soooo, let’s see.

            • Corey Booker – Some time last year – “Brownie Spartacus”
            • Kamala Harris – January – “Cherry Chocolate Prosecution”
            • Joe Biden – February – “Stale Marshmallow Fudge”
            • Beto O’Rourke – March – “Jalapeno Marmalade”
            • Pete Buttigieg – April – “Great Gay Hope”

            I think I’m going to be sick.

    • #54603
      Enthusiast
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,686

      Beto has a policy position. He’s against Medicare for All.

      I would like to remind you that U.S. health insurance companies do not contribute anything to health care. They are only a PARASITIC middle man receiving an undeserved cut of "FREE MONEY".

      Me

    • #54670
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,751

      @ohiobarbarian

      I dont think they would be stupid enough to overturn Roe V Wade right now.  Eventually, perhaps, but I suspect they see what you do.

      A recession… that seems more likely – but short of a really big one – and soon…

      It IS early, which is good.  If the election were to be held in a couple months, I’d say we’d be dealing with the re election of Trump.  Too many think any one of these candidates can beat him – they cant.

      I really think Bernie is our only chance.  Still, let’s assume at least three other candidates hang on through the first round.  The DNC will put its money, media and… other things into play on behalf of the vichy dem candidate.

      That is likely to get a considerable number of primary voters on board – even just the ones who really hate Trump.  Mayor Pete, or Harris, maybe Biden, possibly Booker.

      They need to get 50% of the vote between them.  Then the super delegates can add their weight.

      Its early, but…  I think it’s safe to say that the dems will be overconfident… again.  They likely wont give a damn even if the populace does favor Bernie.  They will scheme, lie, cheat – and play their usual games…

      If, against all odds, Sanders gets the nomination… well, then I will be considerably more excited.

      Early, but we have seen this kind of shit play out before.

    • #54683
      chknltl
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,146

      FWIW, Govornor Jay Inslee, D. Washington State (male), served 2 terms in U.S. House of Representatives and then 2 terms as Wa.State’s Govornor.

      He has fighting global climate change as his primary plank. I do not know if he has spoken about health care, immigration or education or what his positions on them might be.

      My personal opinion: I thought it odd that Inslee quit Congress after only two terms in order to become our Govornor. He is a young man who easily could have continued on with a very successful career in Congress. Becoming our Govornor meant at best two terms, and then what, retirement? At his young age?

      He certainly was not about to run for U.S. Senate. Our two Senators Patti Murray and Maria Cantwell are quite powerful and well loved by Washington’s voters. Neither appear ready to step down nor could Inslee expect good results had he chosen to primary either of them.

      I voted both times for Inslee to be our Govornor but recall thinking the first time that the only logical next step for him was to run for POTUS.

      FWIW I made the same prediction about Hillary when she ran for Congress in NY. Unlike Hillary, Inslee is a charismatic and likable character. He is also well spoken and somewhat handsome.

      Did Jay Inslee, like Hillary Clinton before him, groom himself for a run on the White House or was he groomed for this run by outside forces? That is sorta my question.

      • #54702
        a little weird
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 708

        There are a lot of things I like about Inslee , particularly his climate/environmental positions.  I think he has a good record on education, women’s rights, and immigration.  And he voted against the war in Iraq.  But he’s not in favor of Medicare for All (he supports some public option/buy-in thing) and I read somewhere that he helped design NAFTA back in the day.  If the NAFTA thing’s true, then I think it’s a huge problem for him.  I want to learn more about his past, his positions and if he has evolved on anything.  I could probably vote for him if he became the nominee, but there are other candidates I would rather see in the top spot.

    • #54742
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 10,353

      “Did Jay Inslee, like Hillary Clinton before him, groom himself for a run on the White House or was he groomed for this run by outside forces? That is sorta my question.”

      interesting question.

    • #54782
      incognito
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,142
    • #54947
      RobertFromNC
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 96

      Although it is very early, it really does look like it is either going to be Bernie or 4 more years of Trump.

      • #54961
        xyzse
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,696

        @robertfromnc

        It is early, and again, I am really hoping I am wrong about it.  What prompted me to do this, is the fact that I see too many “Bernie is Unelectable” messages.

        Thing is, I know there are negatives for Bernie, and as time is going, it gets harder and harder for him to win due to many factors.  However, I maintain that the others are even worse off.

        If Bernie is Unelectable, the rest are even more unelectable.  The fact that VDs need a new corporate mascot every month thus far, shows that none of them have the chops to do so.

    • #54992
      Passionate Progressive
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,475

      And as if the Dems didn’t have enough baggage, their reaction (with few exceptions) to Assange’s arrest will not win them any progressive votes.

      The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.....Martin Luther King '63

Viewing 17 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.