Which Dem can win general election in 2020?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One article in politico from October saying Tulsi is considering a run does not a candidacy make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We didn't realize Trump would defraud voters with the support of Russia. And pretty much anyone with any intelligence is disgusted by him now.

Keep making that crap up. Russia didn't steal anything, instead a group of profoundly incompetent and seriously misguided Democrats lost. Not being willing to admit that is every bit as insulting as failing to campaign in Michigan.

The fact that these people are using Russia as an excuse for Hillary Clinton not beating a reality TV star / world class buffoon like Donald Trump in a Democratic stronghold like Michigan is hilarious.

Dems...stop nominating elitists with no authenticity who only stick up for women, minorities and LGBT folks when its politically expedient and have no connection with the constituency that the Democrats were set up to defend (working class people, not corporations) and see how that works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We didn't realize Trump would defraud voters with the support of Russia. And pretty much anyone with any intelligence is disgusted by him now.

Keep making that crap up. Russia didn't steal anything, instead a group of profoundly incompetent and seriously misguided Democrats lost. Not being willing to admit that is every bit as insulting as failing to campaign in Michigan.

The fact that these people are using Russia as an excuse for Hillary Clinton not beating a reality TV star / world class buffoon like Donald Trump in a Democratic stronghold like Michigan is hilarious.

Dems...stop nominating elitists with no authenticity who only stick up for women, minorities and LGBT folks when its politically expedient and have no connection with the constituency that the Democrats were set up to defend (working class people, not corporations) and see how that works.

Clap clap clap clap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sherrod Brown/Amy Klobuchar

PP who advocated for Sanders / Gabbard and this would be a good option as well. Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar are good people and Brown would carry Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania no problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One article in politico from October saying Tulsi is considering a run does not a candidacy make.

Huh? Didn't I say she would be a good VP candidate for Bernie anyway? No one was suggesting she should run for president (at least now). She's a youthful (by Congressional standards) non-white woman with a military background and principled anti-war and anti-corporatist stances. She also defected from the DNC after they screwed Bernie in the primaries. She'd rally women, the base and even moderate Rs, especially women, because of her military experience and personality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sherrod Brown/Amy Klobuchar

PP who advocated for Sanders / Gabbard and this would be a good option as well. Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar are good people and Brown would carry Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania no problem.

But we can't have another Middle-of-nowhere candidate. That's how we always lose.

We need someone from California or NYC. How f#cking cares about the rest of the f%cking country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sherrod Brown/Amy Klobuchar

PP who advocated for Sanders / Gabbard and this would be a good option as well. Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar are good people and Brown would carry Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania no problem.

But we can't have another Middle-of-nowhere candidate. That's how we always lose.

We need someone from California or NYC. How f#cking cares about the rest of the f%cking country.

Satire? Please, please be satire, PP!

I forever hope most of the Dems who post here are GOP false flags. Because if they aren’t...

[Anonymous]

Chapo trap house and Liz bruenig destroyed Beto.

[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?

Stacey Abrams is smarter and did better in worse circumstances?

Why isn’t she being pushed instead of beta?

Let me guess -

The intersectional trifecta of being white, thin, and neoliberal.

Whereas abrams is fat, black, and actually has a real progressive agenda.

Third way tweeted out their huge support for Beto - silly chumps, they don’t realize their endorsement is a kiss of death for 20% of the population.

Enough to sink any chances beta has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sherrod Brown/Amy Klobuchar

PP who advocated for Sanders / Gabbard and this would be a good option as well. Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar are good people and Brown would carry Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania no problem.

But we can't have another Middle-of-nowhere candidate. That's how we always lose.

We need someone from California or NYC. How f#cking cares about the rest of the f%cking country.

Satire? Please, please be satire, PP!

I forever hope most of the Dems who post here are GOP false flags. Because if they aren’t...

Happy to confirm it was satire

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Stacey Abrams is smarter and did better in worse circumstances?

Why isn’t she being pushed instead of beta?

Let me guess -

The intersectional trifecta of being white, thin, and neoliberal.

Whereas abrams is fat, black, and actually has a real progressive agenda.

Third way tweeted out their huge support for Beto - silly chumps, they don’t realize their endorsement is a kiss of death for 20% of the population.

Enough to sink any chances beta has.

Why can't it be both Beto O'Rourke and Stacey Abrams? Not a zero-sum game at this stage.

[Anonymous]

The problem with Abrams and O'Rourke - they didn't win their races. I think their cases would be stronger if they had.

Now, I am totally with everyone that Stacey's race was stolen from her in plain sight...and there were some screwy things going on in TX, as well.

But, without a big state win, I think it is harder for them to go National.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Stacey Abrams is smarter and did better in worse circumstances?

Why isn’t she being pushed instead of beta?

Let me guess -

The intersectional trifecta of being white, thin, and neoliberal.

Whereas abrams is fat, black, and actually has a real progressive agenda.

Third way tweeted out their huge support for Beto - silly chumps, they don’t realize their endorsement is a kiss of death for 20% of the population.

Enough to sink any chances beta has.

Why can't it be both Beto O'Rourke and Stacey Abrams? Not a zero-sum game at this stage.

Two losers doesnt a winner make.

[Anonymous]

Such a superficial way to look at things.

Losing narrowly in red states is very different from losing by a large margin, or winning by narrow margins in blue states. Look at what evidence may be predictive about the Beto and Abrams campaigns. Why do you think that financial prospectuses always say that past performance is not indicative of future results?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sherrod Brown/Amy Klobuchar

PP who advocated for Sanders / Gabbard and this would be a good option as well. Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar are good people and Brown would carry Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania no problem.

But we can't have another Middle-of-nowhere candidate. That's how we always lose.

We need someone from California or NYC. How f#cking cares about the rest of the f%cking country.

I think that a New Yorker can respond to Trump in a more effective way. I think this is why Osario-Cruz is getting so much attention because she responds to Trump like a New Yorker and can more than hold her own.