2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
TragicMonkey said:
I just Googled him, he's not hard on the eyes at all. I see potential.
Click to expand...

Looks good, speaks well, two-term senator, cares about social issues, impeccable bloodlines all the way back to FDR...

If he were a racehorse, I'd be betting on him.
 
Venom said:
I just hope we get to see a Biden or Sanders debate against Trump as early as
possible.

Paul Ryan is considered a good debater and he got absolutely pummeled by Joe
Biden one-on-one, largely with showmanship. And in that regard Biden would
out-talk Trump pretty badly I think. But that was in 2012 and I hope Biden still
has that energy.
Click to expand...


As is tradition, the debates between the Democratic and Republican
presidential candidates happen pretty early in the process, just a little
bit after the conventions, usually four debates, three presidential debates
and one vice presidential debate, that span the last week of September
to the last week of October, generally, but can get canceled if their
schedules do not line up.

Hm. Need more commas in there.
 
"All else being equal" I feel like there's a bit of shying away from the Senate-as-stepping-stone candidates as time goes on. Just feels too "relentless careerist" for many folks.

I long for a return to competitions of great governors and other statewide officers, but the state election authorities are a Byzantine litigious miasma.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
"All else being equal" I feel like there's a bit of shying away from the Senate-as-stepping-stone candidates as time goes on. Just feels too "relentless careerist" for many folks.
Click to expand...

Actually there have only been three presidents who moved directly from the Senate to the Oval Office: Harding, JFK and Obama.

It is much more common to be a governor (recent examples include Clinton, Bush Jr, Reagan and Carter). There is a certain logic here; governors are executive officers with similar large-scale management responsibilities. Senators oversee a staff of maybe a dozen or two people. Not remotely the same.
 
The fact that not many think like that is good for Handsy Uncle Joe with his beady little sci-fi-villain eyes with no whites just black from eyelid to eyelid.
 
Lambchops said:
Ah yes. Vote for the cute guy, who cares about actual politics.
Click to expand...

Attractiveness is frequently an indicator of good health. I know many prefer their presidents to be ancient rotting sacks of putrefying flab soaked in carcinogenic fake tan but perhaps that's not ideal for such an important position.
 
Delvo said:
The fact that not many think like that is good for Handsy Uncle Joe with his beady little sci-fi-villain eyes with no whites just black from eyelid to eyelid.
Click to expand...

In some photos it looks like his wrinkles are arranged like a bulldog's face folds, to channel the blood of the victim in his jaws away from his eyes. I'm not saying Biden is a gremlinlike abomination which feasts upon flesh, but I'm not ruling it out.
 
Brainster said:
Actually there have only been three presidents who moved directly from the Senate to the Oval Office: Harding, JFK and Obama.

It is much more common to be a governor (recent examples include Clinton, Bush Jr, Reagan and Carter). There is a certain logic here; governors are executive officers with similar large-scale management responsibilities. Senators oversee a staff of maybe a dozen or two people. Not remotely the same.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it has just seemed like there was a run of Senate candidates for President the last few cycles and that's just not playing well.
 
Kamela Harris might be hurting herself with her awesome performance: Voters might decide that the job she is currently doing is much more important than the presidency.
 
angrysoba said:
Huh? She's only been elected to the Senate in 2016, meaning her term will be up in 2022. She can't run for Senate in 2020.
Click to expand...

same with Bernie.
But if you plan on not running for your office again, it is considerate to allow someone else to get ready to run, with more than a two year heads-up.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
You are wrong.
At the booth, you are a static.
Click to expand...
Clinging to my ballot.

TragicMonkey said:
I think for the long term good of their party they would have been wiser to have not had Trump be their candidate. The short term victories they've made with him aren't worth the long term damage he's inflicted.



Yes. As a result of letting Trump happen I view the Republican Party as more foolish and less competent than I had previously thought. More pennywise poundfoolish. And that the old guard of quietly ruthless gentleman bastards there has truly died out, leaving the grubby arrivistes in charge. In my view there are now no redeeming qualities left in the Republicans. They can't even be counted on in matters of defense now that they let Russia do as it pleases.
Click to expand...
As a Republican primary voter (Kasich last time) who will probably vote in the Dem primary this time, I just wanted to agree with this completely.
 
Some recent poll results:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...ead-on-trump-in-head-to-head-matchup-cnn-poll
Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) leads President Trump by 10 points in a hypothetical general election matchup...Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Vice President Joe Biden tied for second place behind O'Rourke, with each leading Trump by 6 points. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) followed with a 4-point lead over Trump...

Still way too early to come to any conclusions. (I remember during previous republican clown-car primaries that candidates would regularly rise to the top before dropping off the map... I think Herman Cain was even leading in 2014 for a while.)
 
The fact that the field is so crowded probably means that the Russian social manipulation campaign won't start until after the Nomination.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The fact that the field is so crowded probably means that the Russian social manipulation campaign won't start until after the Nomination.
Click to expand...
I don't know... to me it makes sense that they would attack the most-qualified/most likely to win individuals, either letting the least successful run against Trump (increasing the chance for a second term), or at least building them up as a figure for the malcontents to rally around. (Like in 2016... Attack Clinton during the primaries, build him up as some sort of folk hero fighting "the establishment"). It doesn't even matter who ends up winning... just as long as its not one of the better candidates.

Best case scenario... you get Trump matched up against someone he has a chance of defeating. Worst case scenario, he's matched up against a better candidate but the Democrat has been harmed by the Russian-backed trolls.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom