2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
The more Mayor Pete talks the more I like. Seems reasonable, centrist, practical. I still have my misgivings about the short resume. He so far avoids gaffs.

I wish Hickenlooper and Inslee would do more than announce they are running. I haven't heard anything from either and both have a lot of strengths Congress Critters lack.
 
Craig4 said:
The more Mayor Pete talks the more I like. Seems reasonable, centrist, practical. I still have my misgivings about the short resume. He so far avoids gaffs.

I wish Hickenlooper and Inslee would do more than announce they are running. I haven't heard anything from either and both have a lot of strengths Congress Critters lack.
Click to expand...

His resume is short for the same reason Zion Williamson's resume is short.
 
I think a woman president is absolutely possible and likely, Hillary Clinton was close. But I don't think that an openly gay male with a "wife" or "husband" (the clarification of which already offers Trump giver/taker queries) has a chance.
 
TragicMonkey said:
The mainstream Democrats still strike me as fair weather friends when it comes to the gays.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Especially these days. I think there is a difference between being pro gay rights and being concerned that nominating a gay man for President might cause a backlash among swing voters in middle America.

Look around the country and compare the two major parties. Which party is more inclusive? Which party has more blacks, women and gays running for and have been elected to political positions? It's not even close. The GOP is the party of lily white old men with a very few minorities. Hell Republicans don't even want you to vote if you're not in their demographic.

Democrats promote human rights and equality for everyone. Republicans have been fighting against extending rights to gays mostly under the guise of religious freedom. As in restricting their right to discriminate.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't think so. Especially these days. I think there is a difference between being pro gay rights and being concerned that nominating a gay man for President might cause a backlash among swing voters in middle America.
Click to expand...

Does this apply to other places? What if I run a pool? I know gay people won't contaminate the pool. But I'm concerned letting them swim might cause a backlash among swing members. But I would still be pro gay rights?
 
acbytesla said:
I don't think so. Especially these days. I think there is a difference between being pro gay rights and being concerned that nominating a gay man for President might cause a backlash among swing voters in middle America.

Look around the country and compare the two major parties. Which party is more inclusive? Which party has more blacks, women and gays running for and have been elected to political positions? It's not even close. The GOP is the party of lily white old men with a very few minorities. Hell Republicans don't even want you to vote if you're not in their demographic.

Democrats promote human rights and equality for everyone. Republicans have been fighting against extending rights to gays mostly under the guise of religious freedom. As in restricting their right to discriminate.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, I've been told many times to accept that the Democrats are "good enough", that the scraps they throw are better than nothing, that I should obediently give them my loyalty for their generosity in not advocating I be murdered. They're not the worst it's possible to be therefore I should consider them good. Cut my standards or end up alone.

That's how people end up with bad politicians and unhappy relationships. I'm done settling. Democrats want my vote? They have to actually earn it. No more settling.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Yes, yes, I've been told many times to accept that the Democrats are "good enough", that the scraps they throw are better than nothing, that I should obediently give them my loyalty for their generosity in not advocating I be murdered. They're not the worst it's possible to be therefore I should consider them good. Cut my standards or end up alone.

That's how people end up with bad politicians and unhappy relationships. I'm done settling. Democrats want my vote? They have to actually earn it. No more settling.
Click to expand...

Are you a member of a group that the Democrats do that to? Im a white cis male, so their policies generally don't fall under good enough, but actually good.
 
Zambo said:
I think a woman president is absolutely possible and likely, Hillary Clinton was close. But I don't think that an openly gay male with a "wife" or "husband" (the clarification of which already offers Trump giver/taker queries) has a chance.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. I thought I was before I heard Mayor Pete speak and learned his qualifications. Did you see how he responded to the Notre Dame fire and compare that to Trump?

Donald Trump's tweet.
"So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!"

Here's what Mayor Pete said to a French TV channel.
"To the people of France, I would like to say that Notre Dame Cathedral was like a gift to the human race. We share in the pain but we also thank you for this gift to civilization,"

No, actually Mayor Pete said this to the French people.
"Au peuple de France je voudrais dire que la cathédrale Notre Dame, c’était comme un cadeau à l’espèce humaine. Nous partageons la douleur mais nous vous remercions aussi de ce cadeau à la civilisation."
 
acbytesla said:
I'm not so sure. I thought I was before I heard Mayor Pete speak and learned his qualifications. Did you see how he responded to the Notre Dame fire and compare that to Trump?

Donald Trump's tweet.
"So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!"

Here's what Mayor Pete said to a French TV channel.
"To the people of France, I would like to say that Notre Dame Cathedral was like a gift to the human race. We share in the pain but we also thank you for this gift to civilization,"

No, actually Mayor Pete said this to the French people.
"Au peuple de France je voudrais dire que la cathédrale Notre Dame, c’était comme un cadeau à l’espèce humaine. Nous partageons la douleur mais nous vous remercions aussi de ce cadeau à la civilisation."
Click to expand...

Yes, but.........
 
Zambo said:
Yes, but.........
Click to expand...

No buts.

I was admittedly worried about whether the country was ready for an African American to be President as well. People were concerned that a Catholic couldn't be President (JFK) or a divorced man (Reagan)And electing a woman was a big step and even that woman ended up with the most votes.

What I'm saying is that I just don't know.

In so many ways Pete may be perfect for this moment. I say that because timing may be as important as the individual. Carter was perfect for 1976. Homespun, smart religious Carter was the perfect follow up to Nixon's corruption and sleaziness.

Obama seemed calm, competent, and well balanced in the middle of the financial meltdown and McCain's seemed anything but calm and competent. Trump seems a bit of a backlash to Obama. Pete is everything Trump is not. He comes off sincere, caring, competent and incredibly smart. He's unassuming middle America compared to Trump's brash NY brand of egotistical narcissism.

But I'm not making any decisions yet. Let's see some debates. Let's see if somebody separates themselves from the crowd. Warren is way ahead of the crowd when it comes to articulating policy positions. I like Booker a lot too. I'm least impressed so far by my Governor Inslee. No way does he win even a single primary if he lasts that long.

I'm still considering Biden and Sanders but both seem like yesterday's news to me.
 
Last edited:
Zambo said:
I think a woman president is absolutely possible and likely, Hillary Clinton was close. But I don't think that an openly gay male with a "wife" or "husband" (the clarification of which already offers Trump giver/taker queries) has a chance.
Click to expand...
I think you're probably right. But at least he's not an atheist, who would have no chance at all.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Don't you think it's more like evolving acceptance rather than think they are going to go back to homophobia?
Click to expand...

I think it's calculated attempts to say what they think will get them the most votes, and not one word more, with no genuine feeling or sincerity behind it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I think it's calculated attempts to say what they think will get them the most votes, and not one word more, with no genuine feeling or sincerity behind it.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. My opinion just like the country's has evolved and that includes Democrats. I distinctly remember a time in my early twenties when I was against homosexual acceptance. I didn't hate gays, but I thought it was wrong. I was uncomfortable with homosexuality and still am. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't hire or rent or deprive gays anything. The problem isn't with them, but with me. I know that.

Candidates, consultants and constituents make political calculations. No one is denying that. This whole conversation is about whether the country is ready and whether we should find out if they are. I wouldn't vote for any candidate just because they are gay or a woman or a minority. And I wouldn't vote against any of those people in the general election based on that. The question is whether I should in the primary because I'm afraid the country is not ready for that societal leap and if we can chance it?

You don't think that other Democrats would do the same if someone of my demographic was running? I'm a middle age college educated white guy born in Iowa.
 
BobTheCoward said:
You are depriving one of your primary vote for the position of party nominee because of his sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

I haven't done that....yet. But you'd be right that I might. My goal above all else is to flush the orange turd down the White House toilet. And fair or unfair, If I don't think the country is ready for a homosexual to be President than I won't hesitate to vote against him in the primary based on that reason.
 
acbytesla said:
I haven't done that....yet. But you'd be right that I might. My goal above all else is to flush the orange turd down the White House toilet. And fair or unfair, If I don't think the country is ready for a homosexual to be President than I won't hesitate to vote against him in the primary based on that reason.
Click to expand...

So, retract your statement. You would deny a gay man something because he is gay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom