2020 Election Thread!!!!!!!!!

[onejayhawk]

Interesting article in Politico. The headline is,
Which 2020 Democrat Won 2017?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/01/which-2020-democrat-won-2017-216169

The subtitle is "none of them." The article gives a capsule on the usual suspects--Sanders, Warren, Biden, etc, giving nicknames like Not-Democrat Democrat, Not-Socialist Populist, Comforter, etc. It suggests that Kirsten Gillibrand, nickname Crusader, made the most hay in 2017, but also made some enemies. Others are mentioned as darkhorses, eg Kamala Harris, aka the Target, Chris Murphy and Cory Booker, aka the Tweeters. All of these and Warren are presented as a rank down in the running.

We saw in 2016 that a bad candidate can lose to anyone. Do the Democrats have a good one?

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

Interesting article in Politico. The headline is,
Which 2020 Democrat Won 2017?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/01/which-2020-democrat-won-2017-216169

The subtitle is "none of them." The article gives a capsule on the usual suspects--Sanders, Warren, Biden, etc, giving nicknames like Not-Democrat Democrat, Not-Socialist Populist, Comforter, etc. It suggests that Kirsten Gillibrand, nickname Crusader, made the most hay in 2017, but also made some enemies. Others are mentioned as darkhorses, eg Kamala Harris, aka the Target, Chris Murphy and Cory Booker, aka the Tweeters. All of these and Warren are presented as a rank down in the running.

We saw in 2016 that a bad candidate can lose to anyone. Do the Democrats have a good one?

1. Oprah 2. The Rock 3. Bernie 4. Gavin Newsom 5. Biden

Any of these 5 could win. Next question.

 

[onejayhawk]

1. Oprah 2. The Rock 3. Bernie 4. Gavin Newsom 5. Biden. Any of these 5 could win. Next question.

Could but not would. Cruz can beat any of them like a drum. If Trump does not run in 2020, and I think he will not, Cruz is the likely Republican.

J

 

[Traitorfish]

1. Oprah 2. The Rock 3. Bernie 4. Gavin Newsom 5. Biden

Any of these 5 could win. Next question.

You really want to cement it: Bernie riding on The Rock's shoulders like Master Blaster from Beyond Thunderdome.

Best part is, they could technically go four terms.

 

[Hygro]

Still not a Bernie fan but if he's the one the people need to move forward I'm 100% on board

 

[onejayhawk]

I would have voted Bernie over either of the two in 2016. That said, he's an awful candidate, who looks good only in comparison.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

Against Ted Cruz?

 

[metalhead]

J is in love with Ted Cruz, but never offers an explanation as to why he thinks Cruz is such a great general election candidate.

 

[onejayhawk]

Against Ted Cruz?

Cruz wasn't on the ballot. Just Trump and Clinton, which was my reference.

If you mean in 2020, Sanders is still an awful candidate. It's not a hard choice. In any event, in that race, Sanders is overmatched.

J is in love with Ted Cruz, but never offers an explanation as to why he thinks Cruz is such a great general election candidate.

It's more resignation. He outprepares everyone. Starting from a deep hole, he came close in 2016. In 2020, assuming Trump is out, Cruz has a leg up.

Look at it this way, if he were less ambitious, he would already be sitting on the Supreme Court. Which would be worse, President Cruz for eight years or Justice Cruz for 30?

J

 

[metalhead]

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and offer up 2016 as evidence that being the most prepared is maybe the most irrelevant qualification for office one could possibly come up with

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and offer up 2016 as evidence that being the most prepared is maybe the most irrelevant qualification for office one could possibly come up with

2016? Puh-lease, that's like soooo... 1992... and 2000... and 2008...

 

[onejayhawk]

2016? Puh-lease, that's like soooo... 1992... and 2000... and 2008...

Exactly, especially 2008. Obama had the nomination in hand before Clinton realized the coronation was off.

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and offer up 2016 as evidence that being the most prepared is maybe the most irrelevant qualification for office one could possibly come up with

So, you are refuted by your evidence.

J

 

[metalhead]

Makes no sense as always

 

[Sommerswerd]

Exactly, especially 2008. Obama had the nomination in hand before Clinton realized the coronation was off.

I'm glad you agree... but then... doesn't that contradict your point about Ted Cruz's "preparation"?

 

[onejayhawk]

I'm glad you agree... but then... doesn't that contradict your point about Ted Cruz's "preparation"?

True. Trump beat superior preparation in that case.

The silly things would be to argue that Clinton was better prepared. She was better funded and had dream coverage. She got sloppy and never connected all the dots.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

True. Trump beat superior preparation in that case.

The silly things would be to argue that Clinton was better prepared. She was better funded and had dream coverage. She got sloppy and never connected all the dots.

The point about Clinton is a red herring though... your point was that Cruz out prepares everyone in a POTUS race and that's how he wins. Cruz lost to Trump though, so that argument is just wrong on its face. Charisma and entertainment always wins. That has been proven time and time again. Cruz has neither, so he is fatally flawed as a candidate. I'd argue that the presence of Trump in the race and Cruz stalking him, trying to position himself as the "sane" anti-establishment alternative to Trump was really the wind in his sails in 2016. I'm don't know whether he can make that work for him in 2020.

 

[metalhead]

Of course. "Ted Cruz always wins" except for the time he lost

 

[onejayhawk]

Of course. "Ted Cruz always wins" except for the time he lost

I will allow that Cruz is always the best prepared. The rest is your over reaching.

It does raise a point. Trump, Obama, Bill Clinton, Reagan are all extremely charismatic. No one on scene is close to any of them. Hence, a preference for the guy that works hardest.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

I will allow that Cruz is always the best prepared. The rest is your over reaching.

It does raise a point. Trump, Obama, Bill Clinton, Reagan are all extremely charismatic. No one on scene is close to any of them. Hence, a preference for the guy that works hardest.

No, there is no such preference. 2000 taught us that. When you have two uninspiring candidates the win goes to the more charismatic/entertaining of the two, not the most prepared. You're needlessly over-reaching in an attempt to salvage your obviously incorrect argument about Cruz. The argument was wrong. Just admit/accept it, and move on.

 

[onejayhawk]

No, there is no such preference. 2000 taught us that. When you have two uninspiring candidates the win goes to the more charismatic/entertaining of the two, not the most prepared. You're needlessly over-reaching in an attempt to salvage your obviously incorrect argument about Cruz. The argument was wrong. Just admit/accept it, and move on.

What are you talking about? Bush was better prepared in 2000. Rove's GotV machine swung the election.

J