Which Dem can win general election in 2020?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I stand by my overall point, which is that American aren't going to vote for anyone who describes themselves as a "socialist" in any way, because as a group they literally are incapable of distinguishing between Western European-style welfare state socialism and totalitarian communism.

this X infinity

Stop using words you do not understand, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sanders will be all of what, four years older and much, much healthier than the actual President. At some point, professional Democrats, you have to face that your bad judgements gave us Trump.

Aw, you’re a sad little Sean Hannity victim. No, the professional goppers get to own every inch of their Trump trash. It’s decades of your bad judgments that has brought America, democracy and the notion of law and order to the brink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders will be all of what, four years older and much, much healthier than the actual President. At some point, professional Democrats, you have to face that your bad judgements gave us Trump.

Aw, you’re a sad little Sean Hannity victim. No, the professional goppers get to own every inch of their Trump trash. It’s decades of your bad judgments that has brought America, democracy and the notion of law and order to the brink.

Failures:
-perpetual war and a massively bloated DoD
-massive+worsening economic inequality
-no global warming plan (don't waste my time with thinking 'believing' in the problem gets points)
-a security state that imprisions huge numbers and preys on the weak
-increasing mortality for many population segments
-etc.

On all of these problems, the Democrats have played a massive and very bad role. The Republicans might be worse, but since these problems are existential for many, being 'less bad' is effectively meaningless. And remember, Democrats, especially the Clintonites, have profited massively from these problems.

BTW, I don't own a TV and have never watched Hannity. In fact, I'm a very well informed, long-time Beltway insider. Simpleton sycophants like you contribute to the Democrats continued losing by both being in denial at their role in these problems and by your knee-jerk blaming of people like me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Beto O'Rourke? That's the guy who was hyped beyond belief yet lost to the Senate's biggest a-hole? What's he supposed to do in 2020 again?

Beto is nowhere near my shortlist of preferred candidates, but you don't think that a Democrat who came close to winning a statewide race in TX would fare well in states where the electorate isn't nearly as red?

Beto is definitely on my shortlist. Agree that if he can nearly win a deep red state like Texas he will play well in the heartland plus he’s got near progressive credentials and an authenticity that most politicians lack. And he’s honest, not suffering from dementia and not a dictator lover! He should beat trump in a landslide.

Advisers to other prospective Democratic candidates for 2020 acknowledge that Mr. O’Rourke is worthy of their concern. His record-setting success with small donors would test the grass-roots strength of progressives like Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. His sometimes saccharine call to summon the nation’s better angels would compete with the likely pitch of Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey.

And his appeal to some former Obama advisers — and, potentially, his electoral coalition of young people, women and often infrequent voters — could complicate a possible run for former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who would aim to win back many of his former boss’s constituencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders will be all of what, four years older and much, much healthier than the actual President. At some point, professional Democrats, you have to face that your bad judgements gave us Trump.

Aw, you’re a sad little Sean Hannity victim. No, the professional goppers get to own every inch of their Trump trash. It’s decades of your bad judgments that has brought America, democracy and the notion of law and order to the brink.

Failures:
-perpetual war and a massively bloated DoD
-massive+worsening economic inequality
-no global warming plan (don't waste my time with thinking 'believing' in the problem gets points)
-a security state that imprisions huge numbers and preys on the weak
-increasing mortality for many population segments
-etc.

On all of these problems, the Democrats have played a massive and very bad role. The Republicans might be worse, but since these problems are existential for many, being 'less bad' is effectively meaningless. And remember, Democrats, especially the Clintonites, have profited massively from these problems.

BTW, I don't own a TV and have never watched Hannity. In fact, I'm a very well informed, long-time Beltway insider. Simpleton sycophants like you contribute to the Democrats continued losing by both being in denial at their role in these problems and by your knee-jerk blaming of people like me.

Your post, literally, makes no sense. Try picking up a dictionary before using "big words."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea who is likely to get the nomination in 2020, but Sanders and Warren supporters are delusional if they think either one of them can win a general election, even against Trump.

The vast majority of Americans are absolutely not going to vote for a "Socialist," and if even you don't think that's what Sanders and Warren are, I can guarantee you that's exactly what they will be in the eyes of the electorate by the time the GOP is done with them.

I am not sure how many people you think are required to make a "vast majority" but at least 90%, of Clinton voters have already decided to vote for the Democrat, even it's Karl Marx himself. There are probably another 5% or so of Trump voters who hated both Clinton and Trump, but would vote for almost any other Democrat. "Socialist" is just not the kiss of death it used to be. On the other hand, Trump has lost enough voters in some swing states to make his path to victory even narrower than 2016.

Yikes, those are some big assumptions you’ve made! This is too important to make decision on assumptions. Warren is simply a joke to most Americans. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Sanders had his moment, and lost. Time for new blood.

I dont think Warren is a joke to most Americans. Most Americans are not Trumpers. I do believe that Warren serves a purpose against big businesses and banks. I hope she doesnt run for POTUS. I agree with you in that we need someone under the age of sixty with new iand great deas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders will be all of what, four years older and much, much healthier than the actual President. At some point, professional Democrats, you have to face that your bad judgements gave us Trump.

Aw, you’re a sad little Sean Hannity victim. No, the professional goppers get to own every inch of their Trump trash. It’s decades of your bad judgments that has brought America, democracy and the notion of law and order to the brink.

Failures:
-perpetual war and a massively bloated DoD
-massive+worsening economic inequality
-no global warming plan (don't waste my time with thinking 'believing' in the problem gets points)
-a security state that imprisions huge numbers and preys on the weak
-increasing mortality for many population segments
-etc.

On all of these problems, the Democrats have played a massive and very bad role. The Republicans might be worse, but since these problems are existential for many, being 'less bad' is effectively meaningless. And remember, Democrats, especially the Clintonites, have profited massively from these problems.

BTW, I don't own a TV and have never watched Hannity. In fact, I'm a very well informed, long-time Beltway insider. Simpleton sycophants like you contribute to the Democrats continued losing by both being in denial at their role in these problems and by your knee-jerk blaming of people like me.

Your post, literally, makes no sense. Try picking up a dictionary before using "big words."

Haha! If that’s all you’ve got you’ve got nothing!

Clintonites are failures!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea who is likely to get the nomination in 2020, but Sanders and Warren supporters are delusional if they think either one of them can win a general election, even against Trump.

The vast majority of Americans are absolutely not going to vote for a "Socialist," and if even you don't think that's what Sanders and Warren are, I can guarantee you that's exactly what they will be in the eyes of the electorate by the time the GOP is done with them.

I am not sure how many people you think are required to make a "vast majority" but at least 90%, of Clinton voters have already decided to vote for the Democrat, even it's Karl Marx himself. There are probably another 5% or so of Trump voters who hated both Clinton and Trump, but would vote for almost any other Democrat. "Socialist" is just not the kiss of death it used to be. On the other hand, Trump has lost enough voters in some swing states to make his path to victory even narrower than 2016.

Yikes, those are some big assumptions you’ve made! This is too important to make decision on assumptions. Warren is simply a joke to most Americans. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Sanders had his moment, and lost. Time for new blood.

I dont think Warren is a joke to most Americans. Most Americans are not Trumpers. I do believe that Warren serves a purpose against big businesses and banks. I hope she doesnt run for POTUS. I agree with you in that we need someone under the age of sixty with new iand great deas.

She is definitely running. And I HATE saying this but I just don't think people *like* her enough for her to win. I don't think she has that magic charisma. (I could be wrong. I often am.) This is not to say no woman could take it. I think there are women who could. The person I am personally most rooting for right now is Amy Klobuchar. I'd love to see her as president, and perhaps Beto as VP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea who is likely to get the nomination in 2020, but Sanders and Warren supporters are delusional if they think either one of them can win a general election, even against Trump.

The vast majority of Americans are absolutely not going to vote for a "Socialist," and if even you don't think that's what Sanders and Warren are, I can guarantee you that's exactly what they will be in the eyes of the electorate by the time the GOP is done with them.

I am not sure how many people you think are required to make a "vast majority" but at least 90%, of Clinton voters have already decided to vote for the Democrat, even it's Karl Marx himself. There are probably another 5% or so of Trump voters who hated both Clinton and Trump, but would vote for almost any other Democrat. "Socialist" is just not the kiss of death it used to be. On the other hand, Trump has lost enough voters in some swing states to make his path to victory even narrower than 2016.

Yikes, those are some big assumptions you’ve made! This is too important to make decision on assumptions. Warren is simply a joke to most Americans. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Sanders had his moment, and lost. Time for new blood.

I dont think Warren is a joke to most Americans. Most Americans are not Trumpers. I do believe that Warren serves a purpose against big businesses and banks. I hope she doesnt run for POTUS. I agree with you in that we need someone under the age of sixty with new iand great deas.

She is definitely running. And I HATE saying this but I just don't think people *like* her enough for her to win. I don't think she has that magic charisma. (I could be wrong. I often am.) This is not to say no woman could take it. I think there are women who could. The person I am personally most rooting for right now is Amy Klobuchar. I'd love to see her as president, and perhaps Beto as VP.

Klobuchar is a very sensible politician, which means she has zero chance to be elected by the national Dems.

She should launch her own party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea who is likely to get the nomination in 2020, but Sanders and Warren supporters are delusional if they think either one of them can win a general election, even against Trump.

The vast majority of Americans are absolutely not going to vote for a "Socialist," and if even you don't think that's what Sanders and Warren are, I can guarantee you that's exactly what they will be in the eyes of the electorate by the time the GOP is done with them.

I am not sure how many people you think are required to make a "vast majority" but at least 90%, of Clinton voters have already decided to vote for the Democrat, even it's Karl Marx himself. There are probably another 5% or so of Trump voters who hated both Clinton and Trump, but would vote for almost any other Democrat. "Socialist" is just not the kiss of death it used to be. On the other hand, Trump has lost enough voters in some swing states to make his path to victory even narrower than 2016.

Yikes, those are some big assumptions you’ve made! This is too important to make decision on assumptions. Warren is simply a joke to most Americans. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Sanders had his moment, and lost. Time for new blood.

I dont think Warren is a joke to most Americans. Most Americans are not Trumpers. I do believe that Warren serves a purpose against big businesses and banks. I hope she doesnt run for POTUS. I agree with you in that we need someone under the age of sixty with new iand great deas.

She is definitely running. And I HATE saying this but I just don't think people *like* her enough for her to win. I don't think she has that magic charisma. (I could be wrong. I often am.) This is not to say no woman could take it. I think there are women who could. The person I am personally most rooting for right now is Amy Klobuchar. I'd love to see her as president, and perhaps Beto as VP.

Warren, as far as I can tell, lacks the requisite talents for fighting and for bringing people together. She's ok on policy, certainly a move up from before, but that's not enough.

[Anonymous]

The person I am personally most rooting for right now is Amy Klobuchar. I'd love to see her as president, and perhaps Beto as VP.

Me too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:-perpetual war and a massively bloated DoD
-massive+worsening economic inequality
-no global warming plan (don't waste my time with thinking 'believing' in the problem gets points)
-a security state that imprisions huge numbers and preys on the weak
-increasing mortality for many population segments
-etc.

On all of these problems, the Democrats have played a massive and very bad role. The Republicans might be worse, but since these problems are existential for many, being 'less bad' is effectively meaningless. And remember, Democrats, especially the Clintonites, have profited massively from these problems.

BTW, I don't own a TV and have never watched Hannity. In fact, I'm a very well informed, long-time Beltway insider. Simpleton sycophants like you contribute to the Democrats continued losing by both being in denial at their role in these problems and by your knee-jerk blaming of people like me.

And this, my friends, is the dictionary definition of concern trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders will be all of what, four years older and much, much healthier than the actual President. At some point, professional Democrats, you have to face that your bad judgements gave us Trump.

Aw, you’re a sad little Sean Hannity victim. No, the professional goppers get to own every inch of their Trump trash. It’s decades of your bad judgments that has brought America, democracy and the notion of law and order to the brink.

Failures:
-perpetual war and a massively bloated DoD
-massive+worsening economic inequality
-no global warming plan (don't waste my time with thinking 'believing' in the problem gets points)
-a security state that imprisions huge numbers and preys on the weak
-increasing mortality for many population segments
-etc.

On all of these problems, the Democrats have played a massive and very bad role. The Republicans might be worse, but since these problems are existential for many, being 'less bad' is effectively meaningless. And remember, Democrats, especially the Clintonites, have profited massively from these problems.

BTW, I don't own a TV and have never watched Hannity. In fact, I'm a very well informed, long-time Beltway insider. Simpleton sycophants like you contribute to the Democrats continued losing by both being in denial at their role in these problems and by your knee-jerk blaming of people like me.

Aw, thanks for the laugh big time “insider.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bernie Sanders with Tulsi Gabbard as VP.

Both can appeal to the base and pull disenfranchised working class voters from Trump. Most importantly they’re both solidly on the side of old-school Democrat values and aren’t neo-liberals in blue collar costumes, like Bill Clinton and Biden. Their authenticity and lack of BS make them stand out in the field. They also try to not traffic too much in identity politics, which has been a wedge issue that Republicans have used to pry people who have always historically voted D. A Bernie / Gabbard ticket is not losing Michigan and Pennsylvania, for example. Gabbard’s straight forward demeanor, lack of relative pretense (for a politician), military service and consistently strong non-interventionist, anti-corporate stances make her the anti-Hillary and a very hard person for Trump to go after. She’d also be a way to encourage women voters, even moderate Rs, to vote for the Dems.

Wow, this sounds like an actual formula for defeating Trump, not another re-tread by entrenched Democrats who just want to keep their (and their plutocratic masters') gravy trains going. Are you sure you're in the right place?

Bernie will be 79 years old by 2020. He is far less appealing to the young people and minorities than Beto and Kamala Harris would be (and no one who knows anything about politics would insist they have plutocratic masters.) Tulsi Gabbard hasn't expressed any interest in running for President, but I guess in your land of outer space, that's not an issue. Tammy Duckworth would be a better option as a military hero with more experience.

Huh?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/19/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-bid-917418

Post dumb stuff less, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A Bernie / Gabbard ticket is not losing Michigan and Pennsylvania, for example.

Someone wasn’t paying attention during the midterms. No Democratic ticket is losing Michigan and Pennsylvania this time.

+1

Prognostications brought to you by the same people who thought Trump would be the easiest candidate to beat in 2016.

And the same people who think corporate shills / paragons of faux "charm," who normal people actually think are creepy, like Corey "Citibank" Booker and Julian Castro are the key to winning.