Manny

2020 Bench for Democrats

124 posts in this topic

On 5/14/2017 at 1:34 PM, soulflower said:

Republicans could've nominated Kasich but they chose Trump 

 

That's true, but a majority of republicans wanted someone other than Trump.  He won with a plurality because the field was so crowded.  Hillary won with a majority of democrats backing her.  I believe Trump could be the first modern day president to get primaried if one person, and only one, decides to challenge him in 2020.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soulflower said:

I’m open to better ideas for reaching Universal Healthcare if he has any

He wants to give individuals the opportunity to purchase “slim down” plans. That way, they are not paying for things inapplicable to them. For instance, men would not need OB/GYN coverage, as they do now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bowe Bergdahl and Harvey Weinstein might be available in time.  Ashley Judd might decide to run for office again.  I can see how an O'Malley/Judd ticket might appeal to Dems.  They both have pretty good name recognition too.  Personally, I'd like to see Pelosi/Warren or Warren/Pelosi run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2017 at 2:30 PM, Heisenberg said:

You're pretty alone in that belief. 

He's trolling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, cprenegade said:

 I believe Trump could be the first modern day president to get primaried if one person, and only one, decides to challenge him in 2020.  

I tend to doubt it, for two reasons. First, the Republicans fell right into line behind him when he got elected, praising him and working for his agenda. If they really didn't like him, would they do that? Second, and more importantly, they will destroy anyone who tries it, because the very last thing they need when they're trying to get future Republicans re-elected is rogues getting primary ideas. They like the system the way it runs now just fine.

What they might do, for future elections, is create their own version of superdelegates, the tool the Democrats used to rig their primaries so Hillary would be their nominee (and in fairness, they were likely correct in believing that Sanders was unelectable).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Evil Yoda said:

t

What they might do, for future elections, is create their own version of superdelegates, the tool the Democrats used to rig their primaries so Hillary would be their nominee (and in fairness, they were likely correct in believing that Sanders was unelectable).

Recheck your numbers. Hillary wins without the super delegates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

Recheck your numbers. Hillary wins without the super delegates. 

Okay. I'll do that.

In the meantime, ask yourself if the presence of the superdelegates discouraged Sanders voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Evil Yoda said:

Okay. I'll do that.

In the meantime, ask yourself if the presence of the superdelegates discouraged Sanders voters.

If they did they shouldn't have been. Superdelegates have always gone to whoever had the most normal delegates anyway. I think 2008 may have been an exception, but only because of the Michigan delegate debacle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Evil Yoda said:

Okay. I'll do that.

In the meantime, ask yourself if the presence of the superdelegates discouraged Sanders voters.

Possibly, but shouldn't you blame the voters for that?  Between the super delegates and Russian trolls, no one seems to put her win and her loss blame where it really lies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

28 minutes ago, Evil Yoda said:

Okay. I'll do that.

In the meantime, ask yourself if the presence of the superdelegates discouraged Sanders voters.

I don't think it did. Sanders voters overall were more enthusiastic than Hillary voters. He just couldn't overcome Hillary's advantages in the primaries

Sanders had two obvious obstacles that he couldn't overcome:

1 - He wasn't viewed as a "real Democrat". Meaning, unlike the Clintons, he hadn't spent years building relationships with Democrats outside of Vermont. Sen. Al Franken used this explanation to explain why he endorsed Hillary over Bernie. Hillary helped to campaign for Franken, Sanders didn't.  

2 - His self-identification as a "Socialist." Young people don't really have a negative opinion of Socialism but Polls show that most older voters do view Socialism negatively. It probably hurt Sanders most in the South where he suffered several Blow Out losses against Hillary. 

In 2020, if Sanders decides to run again, his obstacles will be: 

1 - More competition. As many as 10 or more people, including Elizabeth Warren, are expected to run in the Democratic Primaries in 2020

2 - Age. I do think Bernie's age could be more of a factor in 2020 if he's running against much younger Dems who are likely to co-opt parts of his message (i.e Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gilibrand)

 

Edited by soulflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nursing homes will be excited to know one of their peers is still a likely Democrat  front runner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Manny said:

The nursing homes will be excited to know one of their peers is still a likely Democrat  front runner. 

The Oval Office has already become an Adult Daycare according to Sen. Bob Corker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soulflower said:

The Oval Office has already become an Adult Daycare according to Sen. Bob Corker

Maybe so, but Corker can’t be gone soon enough. He helped build the framework for America to sign onto the Iran nuclear deal. He thought we would be too stupid to see his okey doke. I hope he feels it was worth his Senate seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Manny said:

Maybe so, but Corker can’t be gone soon enough. He helped build the framework for America to sign onto the Iran nuclear deal. He thought we would be too stupid to see his okey doke. I hope he feels it was worth his Senate seat.

Yeah the deal failed because Iran has nukes... oh wait never mind

Trump probably can’t find Iran on a map. His own advisers recommend staying in the JCPOA

Edited by soulflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, soulflower said:

Yeah the deal failed because Iran has nukes... oh never mind

Trump probably can’t find Iran on a map. His own advisers recommend staying in the JCPOA

Corker thought he could dupe Republican voters. The MSM tried to help him, but in this day and age there are too many other mediums for information. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corker allowed his legacy to be Iran getting generous sanctions relief and path to a nuke. I hope he’s proud. I am surprised Democrats haven’t convinced him and Flake to switch yet. May be a real possibility if Jones wins in Alabama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Manny said:

Corker thought he could dupe Republican voters. The MSM tried to help him, but in this day and age there are too many other mediums for information. 

Most Republican voters don’t believe in Diplomacy but they have no complaints about Presidents taking us to war without Congressional approval

Arms Treaties are important for world peace and so far the Iran deal has succeeded in delaying Iran’s development of Nuclear weapons

If you have a better idea of how to delay Iran’s pursuit of nukes without going to war, please share it

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soulflower said:

Most Republican voters don’t believe in Diplomacy but they have no complaints about Presidents taking us to war without Congressional approval

Arms Treaties are important for world peace and so far the Iran deal has succeeded in delaying Iran’s development of Nuclear weapons

If you have a better idea of how to delay Iran’s pursuit of nukes without going to war, please share it

 

Let’s go on procedure first. Why wasn’t a 2/3 Senate approval needed for ratification? 1/3 approval with a Presidential veto if it got less is blasphemous to the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Manny said:

Let’s go on procedure first. Why wasn’t a 2/3 Senate approval needed for ratification? 1/3 approval with a Presidential veto if it got less is blasphemous to the Constitution.

They knew it would never get approved as a Treaty but most non-partisan foreign policy experts believe the Iran Deal is the best of the few options we have on Iran. 

Again, Tillerson and Mattis have advised Trump to stick to the deal. 

It should be more concerning how Presidents can deploy the US military all over the world without Congressional approval or oversight (ie Niger)

Edited by soulflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, soulflower said:

They knew it would never get approved as a Treaty but most non-partisan foreign policy experts believe the Iran Deal is the best of the few options we have on Iran. 

Again, Tillerson and Mattis have advised Trump to stick to the deal. 

It should be more concerning how Presidents can deploy the US military all over the world without Congressional approval or oversight (ie Niger)

I don’t want conflict in the Middle East.  If someone get passed constitutionally, why is it okay to circumvent our founding document? Right now I am focusing solely on procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Manny said:

I don’t want conflict in the Middle East.  If someone get passed constitutionally, why is it okay to circumvent our founding document? Right now I am focusing solely on procedure.

Congress has avoided taking hard procedural votes for war so why should they be expected to take meaningful votes on Diplomatic policies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, soulflower said:

Congress has avoided taking hard procedural votes for war so why should they be expected to take meaningful votes on Diplomatic policies?

When was the last time congress authorized the use of military force?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dr Johnny Fever said:

When was the last time congress authorized the use of military force?

2002 I think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now