The 2020 Presidential Election Primary Thread

[Pelado]

Wow. Suddenly Elizabeth Warren looks like a lock to be the next president, elected in 2020. First, I've been assuming that those two goofy old men who have been 1 and 2 in the democratic race certainly will fade. In fact, BS is totally played out; old news. If he's not on top he's not going to rally and get to the top. Second, now she's running third, and in a dead heat with BS in some polls. Third, she's nimble enough to out-BS BS on the left, and move to the center in the general election. She's been smart enough to deny she's a socialist. Fourth, she's a woman. Huge advantage in the democratic primaries, as democrats feel nominating a woman is a moral imperative. And the other women running seem to be terrible politicians. In the general election, it seems a super majority of women will vote for her. Fourth, New Hampshire is next to Massachusetts. Fifth, Trump's polling number are terrible. Warren will crush him in the general election.

Fortunately, she seems to be totally unprincipled and will probably moderate in office like democratic presidents have done.

Sad state of affairs that that would be a fortunate situation for any elected official. Probably true, but still sad.

[BlueK]

Lol, Trump would welcome listen to whatever dirt foreign countries say they have on his opponents help in the 2020 election.



https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/...mpression=true

He didn't collude but he would have and should have?

LOL. What a joke.

And it's annoying that Republicans always feel like they have to keep their comments private when it's clearly an outrageous thing for a president to say:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/13/polit...ion/index.html

[CardiacCoug]

Wow. Suddenly Elizabeth Warren looks like a lock to be the next president, elected in 2020. First, I've been assuming that those two goofy old men who have been 1 and 2 in the democratic race certainly will fade. In fact, BS is totally played out; old news. If he's not on top he's not going to rally and get to the top. Second, now she's running third, and in a dead heat with BS in some polls. Third, she's nimble enough to out-BS BS on the left, and move to the center in the general polls. She's been smart enough to deny she's a socialist. Fourth, she's a woman. Huge advantage in the democratic primaries, as democrats feel nominating a woman is a moral imperative. And the other women running seem to be terrible politicians. In the general election, it seems a super majority of women will vote for her. Fourth, New Hampshire is next to Massachusetts. Fifth, Trump's polling number are terrible. Warren will crush him in the general election.

Fortunately, she seems to be totally unprincipled and will probably moderate in office like democratic presidents have done.

Ha ha is this a joke?

Elizabeth Warren has no chance against Trump if she’s the nominee.

Unlikable, no charisma. She will get crushed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That would be so fitting for the democrats to put up some goofball like Warren against Trump. Yeesh.

[Bo Diddley]

God, bless America.

[SeattleUte]

In the polls, Trump is trailing every significant democratic candidate by landslide proportions. He is way behind in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. He has to win at least one of those states and hold the rest of the 2016 map.

Everyone laughed at Trump too. Which democratic candidate is more viable than Warren?

[frank ryan]

Warren would be better than Trump. It’s not close. Trump makes Nixon look like Moses in terms of integrity.
I don’t think she’d be a lock to beat him. I don’t think she’s a lock to win the nomination for her party.
I think Beto should bow out and run for the senate.

[Applejack]

In the polls, Trump is trailing every significant democratic candidate by landslide proportions. He is way behind in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. He has to win at least one of those states and hold the rest of the 2016 map.

Everyone laughed at Trump too. Which democratic candidate is more viable than Warren?

I'll take a shot at this. Warren is a decent choice: she's a total dork, but she is actually smart and a policy wonk (WHAT?!!?! A President that is interested in policy>!>!>!). The Pocahontas thing is a drag on her (and was a completely self-inflicted burden, btw) but in the end I agree that she is much more (a) likeable, (b) sane, (c) smart than Trump. But who isn't?

I concur with SU that Bernie is a total wackjob (and Angry!) and that Joe Biden is a light-weight grampa.

I think Buttigeg (sp) is interesting, but he's hurt because (a) he's like 15 and (b) he's gay which apparently is still a big deal in large portions of the country.

Also, don't sleep on Kamala Harris. She has a double whammy demographic profile: a black woman. I think she is a real contender. I don't know enough about her yet, but that (the unknown quantity) can also be an advantage, especially when running against someone that 99% of the country has already made up there mind about.

Corey Booker, Beto, Gabbard etc are arm candy. There is no substance.

The one I like who has been disappointing thusfar is Gillibrand. She has substance and she knows how to beat Trump. Also, she has been pretty moderate in the past as a representative of a conservative district, before becoming more liberal as senator for NY. That hints to me that she would shift more to the center as a president.

All the others are running just to run, IMO.

[frank ryan]

I'll take a shot at this. Warren is a decent choice: she's a total dork, but she is actually smart and a policy wonk (WHAT?!!?! A President that is interested in policy>!>!>!). The Pocahontas thing is a drag on her (and was a completely self-inflicted burden, btw) but in the end I agree that she is much more (a) likeable, (b) sane, (c) smart than Trump. But who isn't?

I concur with SU that Bernie is a total wackjob (and Angry!) and that Joe Biden is a light-weight grampa.

I think Buttigeg (sp) is interesting, but he's hurt because (a) he's like 15 and (b) he's gay which apparently is still a big deal in large portions of the country.

Also, don't sleep on Kamala Harris. She has a double whammy demographic profile: a black woman. I think she is a real contender. I don't know enough about her yet, but that (the unknown quantity) can also be an advantage, especially when running against someone that 99% of the country has already made up there mind about.

Corey Booker, Beto, Gabbard etc are arm candy. There is no substance.

The one I like who has been disappointing thusfar is Gillibrand. She has substance and she knows how to beat Trump. Also, she has been pretty moderate in the past as a representative of a conservative district, before becoming more liberal as senator for NY. That hints to me that she would shift more to the center as a president.

All the others are running just to run, IMO.

Gabbard isn't well liked within her own party. She's fringey.

[CardiacCoug]

Gabbard isn't well liked within her own party.

You’re saying that like it’s a negative.

If she is good enough for Joe Rogan she’s good enough for me!

[CardiacCoug]

I'll take a shot at this. Warren is a decent choice: she's a total dork, but she is actually smart and a policy wonk (WHAT?!!?! A President that is interested in policy>!>!>!). The Pocahontas thing is a drag on her (and was a completely self-inflicted burden, btw) but in the end I agree that she is much more (a) likeable, (b) sane, (c) smart than Trump. But who isn't?

I concur with SU that Bernie is a total wackjob (and Angry!) and that Joe Biden is a light-weight grampa.

I think Buttigeg (sp) is interesting, but he's hurt because (a) he's like 15 and (b) he's gay which apparently is still a big deal in large portions of the country.

Also, don't sleep on Kamala Harris. She has a double whammy demographic profile: a black woman. I think she is a real contender. I don't know enough about her yet, but that (the unknown quantity) can also be an advantage, especially when running against someone that 99% of the country has already made up there mind about.

Corey Booker, Beto, Gabbard etc are arm candy. There is no substance.

The one I like who has been disappointing thusfar is Gillibrand. She has substance and she knows how to beat Trump. Also, she has been pretty moderate in the past as a representative of a conservative district, before becoming more liberal as senator for NY. That hints to me that she would shift more to the center as a president.

All the others are running just to run, IMO.

No idea why Gillibrand isn’t getting massive support among other young moms. She is so normal and relatable.

[Applejack]

No idea why Gillibrand isn’t getting massive support among other young moms. She is so normal and relatable.

She choose to make women's issues THE central issue of her campaign. While a good policy goal, you aren't going to win over a ton of men talking exclusively about women's issues.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Libertarians might not be fit to govern, but they can highlight the ridiculousness of our two-party system pretty well:

[old_gregg]

liz warren is a truly horrible candidate. she is a totally unlikeable nerd and will get smashed by trump in a debate. can you be a policy wonk if your policy proposals are some of the worst policy ideas of your generation?

[Applejack]

liz warren is a truly horrible candidate. she is a totally unlikeable nerd and will get smashed by trump in a debate. can you be a policy wonk if your policy proposals are some of the worst policy ideas of your generation?

You can argue with the economics of free public college or government subsidized child care, or the prudence of lowering the criminal liability for executives or stopping foreign countries form purchasing american farmland (truly stupid), but which of those would you classify as the "worst ideas of my (or was it Warren's) generation?