logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> IMPORTANT NOTICE

This forum is for declared Democrats ONLY. If you have not declared yourself as such, DO NOT post here.

> Who would you like to see Run for President in 2020?, Gazing into a cloudy Crystal Ball...
Curmudgeon
post Jun 16 2018, 08:36 PM
Post #1


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,197
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Giuliani: Trump Will Win Second Term Easily, Especially If Dems Nominate ‘Moron’ Biden ( link )

QUOTE
Rudy Giuliani tries to clarify his remarks on Joe Biden: 'I meant he's dumb' ( link )

I listened to what seemed like about 8 years of Republicans attacking Hillary Clinton before she was even nominated by the Democratic Party. I still feel that she was the Republican Party choice as to who they should run against. Apparently, the Republicans are already convinced that their front runner in 2020 will still be their "Trump Card."

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jun 15 2018, 09:00 PM) *
So I'm thinking that the midterms will lay the foundation for a possible impeachment in 2019. However, I also am thinking that it's to the Demos' advantage to let DJT become a toothless and claw-less POTUS for the last two years of his term rather than letting Pence into the position. It could force Trump to pardon himself, which would knock some Republicans out of their complacent stances and possibly expose others for being fundamentally against democratic republics, in favor of absolute central power, and even wanting a theocracy like Iran has, just with Christian jargon instead of Muslim.

Then once President Trump becomes just a regular citizen, he could be tried for crimes in civil courts. Maybe.

Or it could all come to naught. But with no TEA party to speak of, it's pretty hard to see a Republican win this November. And there are plenty of local issues that have either come up or gotten worse due to Trump appointees and nominations, for example public education.

It's going to be interesting no matter what.

I have been listening to Rudy Giuliani's advice to The President, the Press, and anyone with a cell phone as he expounds on his memory of what he wrote about Constitutional law when he was still a law student. His declared fee for defending President Trump has been, "Of course I'm not going to charge Donald for my services." (And why should he bother as "The Donald" has a reputation for not paying his lawyers and not listening to them.)

Okay, so Rudy wants his hat in the ring and his name on the Front Pages as a Republican when his party of choice finally realizes that they backed the wrong horses in 2016 and they will need a new horse to back in 2020. It is still June of 2018 and we have yet to see what impact Trump has on the mid-term elections...

Nonetheless, I would like to see a few hats tossed into the Democratic Ring by Democrats.

Who would you, as a Democrat, like to see nominated by the Democratic Party for President in 2020?

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Jun 16 2018, 08:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
AuthorMusician
post Jun 17 2018, 11:25 AM
Post #2


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,383
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Who would you, as a Democrat, like to see nominated by the Democratic Party for President in 2020?

I want to see Pocahontas take down The Hairbrain onstage, live and uncut.

I want to see Biden metaphorically beat the drumsticks out of the talking KFC bucket.

I want to hear Sharrod Brown rasp away at Republican deadwood policies.

And then there's Colorado's governor who might be looking at DC after leaving this office. Term-limited out. But his name is kinda funny, more than two syllables, so that could be a showstopper.

It'd be a hoot if Mueller were to switch parties and run against either Trump or Pence, depending on how history unfolds. If it rhymes, then it has to happen.

However, nothing rhymes with orange. Election season 2020 could be a very different event, as in being called off by our Dear Leader or pushed out due to nuclear war or stopped entirely from the space alien zombie invasion. They look a lot like tomatoes with tentacles.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Jun 17 2018, 08:43 PM
Post #3


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
Who would you, as a Democrat, like to see nominated by the Democratic Party for President in 2020?


I still like Bernie, so I'll stick with him, or at least somebody from the (true) Progressive wing of the party. Liz Warren and Tulsi Gabbard come to mind.

Problem is, the Clinton wing (why does it still exist?) is still looking to exclude progressives. Keith Ellison was about to win the DNC chair, then the old (losing) guard pulled Tom Perez out of their backside and stuck him in there instead.

I think, just like in 2016, they are playing a game of chicken with Sanders voters; we DARE you not to vote Democrat! Even though they stacked the deck against Bernie and still barely won the primaries, then lost an unlosable election, they are trying the exact same thing. And it's not going to end well. Again.

Last election, I thought it would be the Republican party to fracture, with Trump taking a few crazies with him off to the fringe. Now, I think the Democrats are closer to fracturing. If the progressives don't get a seat at the table, I don't know why they would stick around any longer.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Jun 18 2018, 01:07 PM
Post #4


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,383
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Jun 17 2018, 04:43 PM) *
QUOTE
Who would you, as a Democrat, like to see nominated by the Democratic Party for President in 2020?


I still like Bernie, so I'll stick with him, or at least somebody from the (true) Progressive wing of the party. Liz Warren and Tulsi Gabbard come to mind.

Problem is, the Clinton wing (why does it still exist?) is still looking to exclude progressives. Keith Ellison was about to win the DNC chair, then the old (losing) guard pulled Tom Perez out of their backside and stuck him in there instead.


Keep in mind that the Democratic Party lost to the Electoral College, not to the actual voters.
QUOTE
I think, just like in 2016, they are playing a game of chicken with Sanders voters; we DARE you not to vote Democrat! Even though they stacked the deck against Bernie and still barely won the primaries, then lost an unlosable election, they are trying the exact same thing. And it's not going to end well. Again.

Both the loss and the Trump win are -- you know. It was a fluke, a real-life demonstration that an indirect election scheme like the Electoral College is a very bad idea for a representative democratic republic.

The question is whether the fluke can be repeated. If so, that might signal the end of the EC by constitutional amendment.

Still, can the events of the 2016 election season be repeated now that we are discovering how it was, if not caused by then encouraged by, some pretty deplorable deeds by some sleazy stuffed shirts, both domestic and foreign? I doubt it.
QUOTE
Last election, I thought it would be the Republican party to fracture, with Trump taking a few crazies with him off to the fringe. Now, I think the Democrats are closer to fracturing. If the progressives don't get a seat at the table, I don't know why they would stick around any longer.

Because going off into left field dilutes the vote, and that enables a fluke victory as was handed to Trump.

Perhaps progressives need to review what happens when the vote is diluted, also referred to as split. It brought RMN into office, also GWB.

So, what would you rather have, another Trump term or someone who, if not as progressive as desired, is a whole lot better for the country?

Remember Ralph Nader; remember Eugene McCarthy; remember that the EC already dilutes the vote for Democrats.

In effect, the desire for progressive purity works in favor of the Trump GOP.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Jun 18 2018, 01:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Jun 30 2018, 04:53 PM
Post #5


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jun 18 2018, 09:07 AM) *
Because going off into left field dilutes the vote, and that enables a fluke victory as was handed to Trump.

Perhaps progressives need to review what happens when the vote is diluted, also referred to as split. It brought RMN into office, also GWB.

So, what would you rather have, another Trump term or someone who, if not as progressive as desired, is a whole lot better for the country?

Remember Ralph Nader; remember Eugene McCarthy; remember that the EC already dilutes the vote for Democrats.

In effect, the desire for progressive purity works in favor of the Trump GOP.


Why is it always the progressive wing that is expected to acquiesce? Why can't the Clinton wing move a bit left, for once? Why is the Clinton wing still in existence, anyway?

Democrats should (and generally do) line up and vote for the Dem nominee. Most Sanders people did just that, even though we HATED the way the Dem primaries were "handled." But it was Bernie who got the independents on board, not Hillary. The Clinton Dems are the ones missing the boat here - people have zero enthusiasm for her, or anybody like her. Voters want progressive ideas put forth. They want universal healthcare, not a few tweaks to the present system.

We had two real candidates in 2016 that truly promised change - Sanders and Trump. That's where the enthusiasm was, good or bad. Trump's election was no fluke. Nobody, on either side, wanted the staus quo. Hillary might have had "staus quo" tattooed on her forehead.

In hindsight, sure, the status quo would have been better than Trump, but only because Trump is a psycho, not because the status quo is a good thing. Problem is, I think this is what the Clinton Dems are banking on; "See what happened the last time you didn't vote for the status quo? You should have voted for more of the same. Again." Well, I'd say the same thing to them - "See what happens when you install a wildly unpopular candidate, just because she has money behind her? Don't make that same mistake in 2020. Let the voters decide, and don't interfere in that process."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Jun 30 2018, 09:14 PM
Post #6


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,383
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Jun 30 2018, 12:53 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jun 18 2018, 09:07 AM) *
Because going off into left field dilutes the vote, and that enables a fluke victory as was handed to Trump.

Perhaps progressives need to review what happens when the vote is diluted, also referred to as split. It brought RMN into office, also GWB.

So, what would you rather have, another Trump term or someone who, if not as progressive as desired, is a whole lot better for the country?

Remember Ralph Nader; remember Eugene McCarthy; remember that the EC already dilutes the vote for Democrats.

In effect, the desire for progressive purity works in favor of the Trump GOP.


Why is it always the progressive wing that is expected to acquiesce? Why can't the Clinton wing move a bit left, for once? Why is the Clinton wing still in existence, anyway?

Because the Democratic Party reformed itself after the 1968 convention in Chicago in order to 1) not appoint the nominee despite primaries, and 2) keep populist demagogues from taking over.
QUOTE
Democrats should (and generally do) line up and vote for the Dem nominee. Most Sanders people did just that, even though we HATED the way the Dem primaries were "handled." But it was Bernie who got the independents on board, not Hillary. The Clinton Dems are the ones missing the boat here - people have zero enthusiasm for her, or anybody like her. Voters want progressive ideas put forth. They want universal healthcare, not a few tweaks to the present system.

How do you know Sanders (not the chicken lady, not the colonel) brought on unaffiliated voters? The ballot is a secret one, and what people say is inherently unreliable. It does seem true that some unaffiliated voters went HRC's way due to Sanders, but how many others did so because of Trump?

Nobody really knows.
QUOTE
We had two real candidates in 2016 that truly promised change - Sanders and Trump. That's where the enthusiasm was, good or bad. Trump's election was no fluke. Nobody, on either side, wanted the staus quo. Hillary might have had "staus quo" tattooed on her forehead.

In hindsight, sure, the status quo would have been better than Trump, but only because Trump is a psycho, not because the status quo is a good thing. Problem is, I think this is what the Clinton Dems are banking on; "See what happened the last time you didn't vote for the status quo? You should have voted for more of the same. Again." Well, I'd say the same thing to them - "See what happens when you install a wildly unpopular candidate, just because she has money behind her? Don't make that same mistake in 2020. Let the voters decide, and don't interfere in that process."

When one candidate beats another by 2.8 million votes, and when the Electoral College makes the win not only moot but reverses it, arguing about who voted for whom becomes meaningless.

The Trump EC win has demonstrated that an idea that might have made perfect sense in the 18th century no longer does in the 21st. It does not keep populist demagogues away from power, and that power is a whole lot stronger today than when the nation was younger, smaller, less populated and technologically undeveloped (by today's standards). There are a lot of other big differences too, but you get my drift.

The one thing I can point to as a positive is that what wasn't fully understood in 2016 is now up in everyone's face: Trump's win was America's loss. Well, except for the shrinking Republican base. Maybe by 2020, it'll have become a squeaking little mouse -- or maybe a raging bull?

Let's see what happens in November, 2018. One step at a time . . .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Jul 12 2018, 05:48 PM
Post #7


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jun 30 2018, 05:14 PM) *
QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Jun 30 2018, 12:53 PM) *

Why is it always the progressive wing that is expected to acquiesce? Why can't the Clinton wing move a bit left, for once? Why is the Clinton wing still in existence, anyway?

Because the Democratic Party reformed itself after the 1968 convention in Chicago in order to 1) not appoint the nominee despite primaries,...


But they allowed superdelegates to interfere with the primary process, which became a de facto appointment. If superdelegates are supposed to be some sort of protection against the people electing a madman, then they should be a nonfactor in a normal primary election (like 2016), and should probably even be split in proportion to the actual votes, so as not to steal influence from the voters. Instead, delegates declared their support for Clinton right out of the gate.

QUOTE
...and 2) keep populist demagogues from taking over.


That sounds a lot like, "anybody outside of the mainstream is a 'populist demagogue'."

QUOTE
How do you know Sanders (not the chicken lady, not the colonel) brought on unaffiliated voters? The ballot is a secret one, and what people say is inherently unreliable. It does seem true that some unaffiliated voters went HRC's way due to Sanders, but how many others did so because of Trump?


Polls. Interviews. Rallies. Talking with other people.

QUOTE
When one candidate beats another by 2.8 million votes, and when the Electoral College makes the win not only moot but reverses it, arguing about who voted for whom becomes meaningless.


I'm not a big fan of the electoral college myself, but it's how we elect our presidents, so pointing to the popular vote is a lot like claiming your baseball team should have won because they got more hits, but fewer runs. Everybody plays by the same rules (except for the primaries), and she lost the game. The electoral college system just means that you can break the analysis down to certain states.

So the arguments aren't meaningless. Understanding exactly what happened is the best way to prevent it from happening again. One side sees it as Bernie siphoning off progressives and weakening the Clinton faction, and the other side sees it as the old guard resisting necessary and popular change. Look at how the Dem party is treating the Ocasio-Cortez win over Crowley, like it wasn't a legitimate win. It just wasn't what the old guard was expecting.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Jan 25 2019, 06:02 PM
Post #8


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I have not posted here in several years, but the 2020 might be the most important we have ever held. Trump is an out of control madman, who governs by tweet and has no empathy for the federal workers he has taken. This man is a liar and a goddamned sociopath.

The person we elect must be the exact opposite of Trump. Trump tweets need to be replaced by intellectual depth. Trump is male, because of the role women played in the 2018 midterms we need to give a woman a chance. Where Trump had no government experience, our candidate should have a mixture of private and public and public experience. To achieve this experience our candidate can’t be too young, but I am not for someone too young. I read that the average age of presidents at the time of election is 55. My candidate is in her late 50s and would be right at 60 at the time of inauguration. Although she has not announced yet, my candidate is Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. Klobuchar is all the things I listed above that Trump is not

I am reading Klobuchar’s memoir, The Senator Next Door. She is a graduate of Yale and the University of Chicago Law School. She has intellectual curiosity missing in both George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump. She has 13 years private experience in two of Minnesota’ top law firms. She has public administrative experience as a two term County Attorney in Hennapin County, Minnesota. She was a firm, but fair prosecutor who went after violent offenders and more than a decade before the “Me Too” movement went after sexual assaulters and rapists. On the other hand, she set up a unit to free wrongfully convicted using DNA evidence. In 2018 she was elected to a third senate term by more than 20 points. Perhaps Klobuchar’s greatest asset is her temperament, evident in both the Brett Kavanaugh and William Barr hearings. Although she is clearly in the progressive tradition of Minnesota senators Hubert H Humphrey, Walter Mondale - her mentor - and Paul Wellston, she has worked well across aisle with Republicans as diverse as Chuck Grassley.

This post has been edited by BoF: Jan 25 2019, 07:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Feb 4 2019, 08:55 PM
Post #9


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,383
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(BoF @ Jan 25 2019, 02:02 PM) *
I am reading Klobuchar’s memoir, The Senator Next Door. She is a graduate of Yale and the University of Chicago Law School. She has intellectual curiosity missing in both George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump. She has 13 years private experience in two of Minnesota’ top law firms. She has public administrative experience as a two term County Attorney in Hennapin County, Minnesota. She was a firm, but fair prosecutor who went after violent offenders and more than a decade before the “Me Too” movement went after sexual assaulters and rapists. On the other hand, she set up a unit to free wrongfully convicted using DNA evidence. In 2018 she was elected to a third senate term by more than 20 points. Perhaps Klobuchar’s greatest asset is her temperament, evident in both the Brett Kavanaugh and William Barr hearings. Although she is clearly in the progressive tradition of Minnesota senators Hubert H Humphrey, Walter Mondale - her mentor - and Paul Wellston, she has worked well across aisle with Republicans as diverse as Chuck Grassley.

I agree that Klobuchar would make an excellent POTUS, bringing to the station a clear-headed professional who keeps her grace under pressure and has a sense of humor -- not the stand-up comedy chops that Obama displayed, but a more earthy reality-based humor about human nature.

But mostly she's competent and reserved. I wrote elsewhere that I had to check her bio to see if I'd ever been in the same classroom with her, but she's too young. Nevertheless, she is very much like several women I met in Minnesota high schools and colleges.

Minnesotans are known to be nice people, but there's something else too. It has to do with being genuine, no fluff, no swagger, fearless (due to the winters), and often brutally honest. If a Minnesotan says she or he is about to pop you in the nose, you'd better believe it. A fist to the schnoz is about to be experienced unless you back off.

There are some charlatans, but they tend to be very bad at it, like a Halloween skeleton trying to be Santa. Jesse Ventura comes to mind, wrestler turned politician turned conspiracy nut. Also the infamous Michele Bachmann.

So just being from Minnesota is, um, nice, but Klobuchar knows exactly what she's doing and doesn't make it a guessing game for others. It'll be interesting to watch others try to mess her up in debates, and maybe she'll get to debate Trump. I'm seeing her leading him back to his podium like a grade-school teacher with an unruly, somewhat dim, student.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Feb 6 2019, 01:23 PM
Post #10


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,383
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Klobuchar is going to announce her run for POTUS this Sunday, or so she has strongly hinted to Maddow. Unless something entirely unforeseen happens, she'll likely get the nomination. Here's why:

* No ego problems - she is very comfortable about who she is and what she's accomplished along the way.

* No dirt to be dug - if there were any scandals, they've already been handled or debunked

* Not too far left - she's for what's right, not ideological wishful thinking. Pundits will likely call her moderate, but she's actually progressive in a classical way. Go towards improvements but at a measured pace that most people can keep up with.

* Truly the opposite of Trump - an obvious character trait.

* Highly intelligent without the need to advertise the fact - part of her ego mastery.

* Down-home charisma - for lack of a better description of her appeal.

* No religious, economic, or geopolitical hidden agenda - she'll do the job of POTUS well, which in itself could be enough reason for the electorate to nominate and elect her.

There are a few parallels with Carter after Nixon but without the born-again shtick and high inflation rate.

If anyone has the ability to reverse the splitting trend, it's probably her. I'm wondering how the trolls out there will try to drag her down -- it might be too difficult for all but the hardest of lost souls, and their attempts will likely be so lame that hardly anyone falls for their dissing.

She also has an odd sex appeal that's very understated and subconscious. A few celebrities have this too -- Emmylou Harris comes to mind but without the angst. Also Buddy Epsen (Beverly Hillbillies) with the wisdom and other plain-looking folks who are exceptionally good at what they do. It can't be faked because it has to do with inner beauty and light.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Feb 6 2019, 07:27 PM
Post #11


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Thanks AM.

Here is a video on Sen. Klobuchar talking to Rachael Maddox. Women politicians are often accused unfairly of being shrill. Notice how Sen. Klobuchar’s voice is perfectly modulated.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ageSrM5IXtc
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Feb 7 2019, 03:33 PM
Post #12


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,383
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



It seems that Klobuchar is a hard boss to work for due to her insistence on quality performance and her unabashed treatment of those who don't meet up to her expectations:

Klobuchar Staff Abuse?

This I can believe. It's the flip-side of Minnesotan Nice. So I'm not surprised that working for Klobuchar is difficult, nor do I find it unusual that not everyone can do it. Gotta have skin thicker than bison hide.

The saving grace is that she's not irrational about it, apparently, as opposed to working for someone who's crazy. If she has a problem though, it'll come out through her own behavior well before Election Day 2020.

Maybe the additional scrutiny of candidates is something we need to avoid getting another Trump.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 18th, 2019 - 04:41 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.