Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts


Regarding Elizabeth Warren and the tribal citizen.  Yes it was wrong, stupid, and was claiming that which wasn't her's to claim.  Long term it won't amount to a hill of beans IMHO.  I'm glad Warren is in for a couple of reasons 1.  I think her entry keeps Bernie out. (just watch Bernie announce on Tuesday:facepalm: to prove how little I know).  She is more articulate in communicating the same things Bernie stands for.  2. I don't think she wins the nomination but I think it will force the Dems to look at younger candidates who have a similar message.   3. At this point, I'm thinking Sen Booker is helped by her  entry.  Why:dunno  Because there are  several female candidates with very similar political view points who are Senators who may end up splitting the vote of those who want a female nominee and because Booker's message is a bit different than the other Senators in the race.  Perhaps a bit more moderate. In 2016 the GOP had several experienced, true conservatives in the primary and 3 were senators.  Trump was able to differentiate himself from them and pick them off one by one.

Senators Harris, Klobuchar, Warren, Gillibrand are all cut from a similar cloth and I'm not sure how well they will be able to differentiate themselves from each other.  Throw in Rep Tulsi Gabbard who is not a lot different and we have a big log jam of similar female candidates.  The same would be true if all of these were male candidates.   Of these, I think it will come down to Klobuchar (experience), Harris (the flaming new star) and Booker - the alternative.   If Biden gets in, you may see him take the 'experience ' mantle and become the compromise candidate.  But I don't think he would be the best choice for the Dems.  I think the country is crying out for new younger leadership that understand today's problems.  Also, can't forget the darkhorse South Bend Mayor Buttigiegs and Tex Rep Bevo or I mean Beto (couldn't resist).  I don't think either will get the nomination but I think they will bring some fire into the discussion. 

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/pete-buttigiegs-quiet-rebellion

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

Here's my thoughts on Warren.  You remember there was a woman years ago that worked for the NAACP and claimed to be black....which it found out she wasn't actually black.  Well, she lost her job and was publicly ridiculed.  Now, thinking about that, it's quite possible that she did that so she could get a job at the NAACP because she really believed in the cause and wanted to further the cause.


Well.....nothing about what Warren did was to "further a cause".  It was completely 100% to take advantage of benefits that are put in place to help minorities.  If she got into the college because they thought she was native American...well..that very well may have kept a real Native American out (or some other minority member).  Her actions were completely 100% self serving.  Does that mean she should resign or have her career in congress ruined?  No.  But, I have no desire to vote for her for President because of it either.  

 

We have been building to a point where political people all across the spectrum are having their lives ruined because of crap being dredged up from decades ago.  I'm fairly uncomfortable about that and I wish it would stop.  We even try ruining people over stuff that can't be substantiated.  

 

I wish there was a way out of this never ending cycle of people accusing people of stuff from decades ago.  But.....I'm not sure there is one.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Regarding Elizabeth Warren and the tribal citizen.  Yes it was wrong, stupid, and was claiming that which wasn't her's to claim.  Long term it won't amount to a hill of beans IMHO.  I'm glad Warren is in for a couple of reasons 1.  I think her entry keeps Bernie out. (just watch Bernie announce on Tuesday:facepalm: to prove how little I know).  She is more articulate in communicating the same things Bernie stands for.  2. I don't think she wins the nomination but I think it will force the Dems to look at younger candidates who have a similar message.   3. At this point, I'm thinking Sen Booker is helped by her  entry.  Why:dunno  Because there are  several female candidates with very similar political view points who are Senators who may end up splitting the vote of those who want a female nominee and because Booker's message is a bit different than the other Senators in the race.  Perhaps a bit more moderate. In 2016 the GOP had several experienced, true conservatives in the primary and 3 were senators.  Trump was able to differentiate himself from them and pick them off one by one.

Senators Harris, Klobuchar, Warren, Gillibrand are all cut from a similar cloth and I'm not sure how well they will be able to differentiate themselves from each other.  Throw in Rep Tulsi Gabbard who is not a lot different and we have a big log jam of similar female candidates.  The same would be true if all of these were male candidates.   Of these, I think it will come down to Klobuchar (experience), Harris (the flaming new star) and Booker - the alternative.   If Biden gets in, you may see him take the 'experience ' mantle and become the compromise candidate.  But I don't think he would be the best choice for the Dems.  I think the country is crying out for new younger leadership that understand today's problems.  Also, can't forget the darkhorse South Bend Mayor Buttigiegs and Tex Rep Bevo or I mean Beto (couldn't resist).  I don't think either will get the nomination but I think they will bring some fire into the discussion. 

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/pete-buttigiegs-quiet-rebellion

Maybe from the conservative perspective Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, and Gabbard seem similar, but I see Warren and Gabbard as being significantly different from the others. Warren is much more progressive on policies similar to Bernie (although Bernie is still to the left of her on most issues). Gabbard is one of the only outspoken anti-war, non-intervention candidates running. Harris, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar are somewhat similar in that they're from the corporate/establishment wing of the party but as the primary continues I think we'll see that they'll distinguish themselves from each other.

Link to comment

I believe Klobuchar will be able to distinguish herself apart from the others because she is from the middle(in general terms) of the country.  Which is where Clinton lost big and where Democrats still lag behind.  Harris and Gillibrand are from the coasts.  And while it shouldn't be a disqualifier, people from the Midwest typically take an unfavorable view towards them compared to others from the start.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

4 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

I believe Klobuchar will be able to distinguish herself apart from the others because she is from the middle(in general terms) of the country.  Which is where Clinton lost big and where Democrats still lag behind.  Harris and Gillibrand are from the coasts.  And while it shouldn't be a disqualifier, people from the Midwest typically take an unfavorable view towards them compared to others from the start.

I think her coming from the middle won't be an advantage since winning the California primary is worth more delegates (362) than Minnesota (65), Wisconsin (67), and Michigan (109) combined. But it's a proportional split, not a winner-take-all, so this is just to give a rough idea.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I think her coming from the middle won't be an advantage since winning the California primary is worth more delegates (362) than Minnesota (65), Wisconsin (67), and Michigan (109) combined. But it's a proportional split, not a winner-take-all, so this is just to give a rough idea.

 

I don't think she will have a difficult time winning over Californians.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

I believe Klobuchar will be able to distinguish herself apart from the others because she is from the middle(in general terms) of the country.  Which is where Clinton lost big and where Democrats still lag behind.  Harris and Gillibrand are from the coasts.  And while it shouldn't be a disqualifier, people from the Midwest typically take an unfavorable view towards them compared to others from the start.

And the all important Iowa caucus is right next door.   Good points on Amy.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, schriznoeder said:

 

 

I'm slowly remembering shallowness and attention paid to the most puerile details on political Twitter, and by extension our politics in general, and it's making me begin to hate it.

 

But my goodness, what a good response from Klobuchar. I think a winning approach to 2020 is to stay focused on the issues most of the time and pick your spots to respond to him in a way that portrays him as the non-serious buffoon that he is.

 

Focusing on issues is how people beat Burlusconi in Italy. You certainly don't want to get down in the mud with Trump - as the saying goes, only the pig will enjoy it.

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

Trump:  "Tells it like it is"

Klobuchar:  "She's mean"

 

Trump:  Has weird dining habits

Gillibrand:  Eats fried chicken with a fork and is deemed out of touch

 

Trump:  Advocates that police be more physical with criminals

Harris:  Has to defend her prosecution record as being too strong.

 

I'm seeing a trend here

  • Plus1 8
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...