GENERAL ELECTION 2020 DISCUSSION THREAD

GENERAL ELECTION 2020 DISCUSSION THREAD

Arrow8
  • [blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"][p lang="en" dir="ltr"]IOWA[br]2020 Democratic Caucus:[br]Biden 30%[br]Sanders 13%[br]O'Rourke 11%[br]Klobuchar 10%[br]Warren 9%[br]Harris 7%[br]Booker 6%[br]Brown 3%[br]Bloomberg 2%[br]Kerry 2%[br]Delaney 1%[br][br]David Binder Research/[a href="https://twitter.com/focusonrural?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw"]@focusonrural[/a] 12/10-11[a href="https://t.co/OgzVEXI7Mv"]https://t.co/OgzVEXI7Mv[/a] [a href="https://t.co/FMPH32GyAQ"]pic.twitter.com/FMPH32GyAQ[/a][/p]— Political Polls (@Politics_Polls) [a href="https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1074777432685772800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw"]December 17, 2018[/a][/blockquote]
  • Discussion
  • If Biden wants it it's his. Bernie VP.

  • Dems should boycott the Iowa Caucuses.

  • PennSpartan said... (original post)

    Dems should boycott the Iowa Caucuses.

    Because ignoring the Midwest worked out SO well for you last time...

    lol

  • Cosmo_Kramer said... (original post)

    I wish someone like Stacy Abrams would get more publicity from the party machinery. She and O'Rourke have done great work, have been building great resumes, and are rare examples of politicians who give complete and thoughtful answers on issues rather than deflecting when their answer might not be popular. Perhaps the difference is due to O'Rourke serving in the House as opposed to being just a Texas politician, but I'd argue Stacy Abrams has a resume that's so loaded it's almost shocking, and she doesn't get proportional recognition for it.

  • TravelinMan said... (original post)

    Because ignoring the Midwest worked out SO well for you last time...

    lol

    Your party just got their asses kicked in the Midwest last month. lol

  • TravelinMan said... (original post)

    Because ignoring the Midwest worked out SO well for you last time...

    lol

    The Iowa Caucuses are a six month long shitfest that produces nothing. Meeting in living rooms and church basements to promote your candidate is 19th century campaigning. It’s a waste of time and money.

  • TheAxMan said... (original post)

    I wish someone like Stacy Abrams would get more publicity from the party machinery. She and O'Rourke have done great work, have been building great resumes, and are rare examples of politicians who give complete and thoughtful answers on issues rather than deflecting when their answer might not be popular. Perhaps the difference is due to O'Rourke serving in the House as opposed to being just a Texas politician, but I'd argue Stacy Abrams has a resume that's so loaded it's almost shocking, and she doesn't get proportional recognition for it.

    Fair point, but the resume does matter -- especially if you're a representative or senator. She and Gillum lost their gubernatorial races, which took them out of the spotlight. Beto lost, obviously, but he's still a congressman and nearly pulled off a shocking upset in a deep red state.

    The Klobuchar jump in just a few short weeks really astounds me. I said months ago that she should seriously be viewed as a real contender, due to her very impressive background. Those unaware of what she'd one in law and Congress should just read her Wiki bio.

  • PennSpartan said... (original post)

    The Iowa Caucuses are a six month long shitfest that produces nothing. Meeting in living rooms and church basements to promote your candidate is 19th century campaigning. It’s a waste of time and money.

    Give it a shot. What's the worst that could happen? lol

  • TravelinMan said... (original post)

    Give it a shot. What's the worst that could happen? lol

    Start with the New Hampshire primary?shrug

  • PennSpartan said... (original post)

    Start with the New Hampshire primary?shrug

    Agreed. Stay on the east coast where you people belong. wink_msu

  • when Dems get to choose a leader, the top 3 choices are white and male lol

  • b0b said... (original post)

    when Dems get to choose a leader, the top 3 choices are white and male lol

    It’s Iowa

  • b0b said... (original post)

    when Dems get to choose a leader, the top 3 choices are white and male lol

    Any color is better than orange.

  • Hmmmmmmmm

  • Cosmo_Kramer said... (original post)

    Old white men are the favorites, the dem racism shines on!

  • Draka said... (original post)

    Old white men are the favorites, the dem racism shines on!

    Looks at last 3 GOP nominees for President. Thinks Draka should probably shut up.

  • Draka said... (original post)

    Old white men are the favorites, the dem racism shines on!

    Are you aware of who just kicked your ass over and over in the midterms ?
    And old white men are the ones being shown the door lol

  • Draka said... (original post)

    Old white men are the favorites, the dem racism shines on!

    How's the weather in Moscow today, comrade?

    Here in the United States it is sunny and cool.

  • VeniceSpartan said... (original post)

    If Biden wants it it's his. Bernie VP.

    Beto could overtake him pretty quickly when he gets more exposure I think. He could build momentum fast and take Iowa.

  • Ivey Wingo said... (original post)

    Beto could overtake him pretty quickly when he gets more exposure I think. He could build momentum fast and take Iowa.

    Beto is certainly the flavor of the moment. I'll come back to this - you don't win in places like Iowa and New Hampshire without two things - campaign infrastructure and funding. I've no idea of O'Rourke can attract those two things should he decide to run. He's an appealing candidate with that Bobby Kennedy vibe. But he's also a failed Senate candidate who lost to a rather unpopular Republican. It wasn't a well run campaign even if it did raise his national profile.

    I get the appeal of Beto. Truly. But we've seen flavors of the moment go to Iowa and New Hampshire and lose, mainly because they failed to build that ground game, a county-by-county approach, speaking to 20 people at a local VFW, while also failing to build a funding base to take it national should they find initial success. O'Rourke appearing on Colbert isn't going to get a win in those primaries, just as it didn't get a win in Texas. But it did make him the flavor of the moment. Whether it's more than that, well, money and campaign staffing is a good indicator.....

  • VeniceSpartan said... (original post)

    If Biden wants it it's his. Bernie VP.

    I disagree, 78 is just too old. 2016 was his shot, and understandably he didn't want to go through everything after Beau died. With that said, he could be the nominee maker with his endorsement but I don't think he will do that because he knows that the real candidates are forged in the fire of fierce debate on issues. I'd say that moving the debate among the new guard is going to be his and Bernie's roll. I think it's going to come down to any combination of Booker, O'Rourke, Harris, and Klobuchar.

  • Heathens 87 said... (original post)

    Beto is certainly the flavor of the moment. I'll come back to this - you don't win in places like Iowa and New Hampshire without two things - campaign infrastructure and funding. I've no idea of O'Rourke can attract those two things should he decide to run. He's an appealing candidate with that Bobby Kennedy vibe. But he's also a failed Senate candidate who lost to a rather unpopular Republican. It wasn't a well run campaign even if it did raise his national profile.

    I get the appeal of Beto. Truly. But we've seen flavors of the moment go to Iowa and New Hampshire and lose, mainly because they failed to build that ground game, a county-by-county approach, speaking to 20 people at a local VFW, while also failing to build a funding base to take it national should they find initial success. O'Rourke appearing on Colbert isn't going to get a win in those primaries, just as it didn't get a win in Texas. But it did make him the flavor of the moment. Whether it's more than that, well, money and campaign staffing is a good indicator.....

    I'm sorry but saying O'Rourke didn't have a well run campaign is ludicrous and I'm not even a fan of the guy. The Texas governor's race was decided by 13.5 points with a fairly unpopular governor. Beto lost by 2.6 in a state that hadn't elected a Democrat to the Senate since Lloyd Bentsen in 1988. Not only has no Democrat won since then, no Dem had come inside of single digits over that entire stretch. That would be akin to saying Doug Jones ran a bad race if Roy Moore had gotten 25,000 more votes in Alabama. I think Beto's star is fading and probably won't make a dent in the Presidential race but saying he didn't run a good campaign kind of understates what he did and the uphill climb he had.

  • Heathens 87 said... (original post)

    Beto is certainly the flavor of the moment. I'll come back to this - you don't win in places like Iowa and New Hampshire without two things - campaign infrastructure and funding. I've no idea of O'Rourke can attract those two things should he decide to run. He's an appealing candidate with that Bobby Kennedy vibe. But he's also a failed Senate candidate who lost to a rather unpopular Republican. It wasn't a well run campaign even if it did raise his national profile.

    Beto literally raised more money than any Senate candidate in the history of the United States, how can you say it was a poorly run campaign lol? When is the last time a Democrat came within 3 % points of winning a Senate seat in Texas anyways? I imagine it’s been at least 20 years and as the above poster pointed out 30 years since a D won.

    I think there should be concern that Bernie will eat into the base Beto needs to make the leap, but the guy clearly knows how to run a campaign.

  • Ivey Wingo said... (original post)

    Beto literally raised more money than any Senate candidate in the history of the United States, how can you say it was a poorly run campaign lol?

    and still lost