No I won’t. There’s already a pit thread with your name on it, that one will do. See ya there.
So better that Trump wins than Biden becomes the candidate, or even stays in the race? What are these things that disqualify Democrats from running? Who is the pristine candidate?
I don’t think that Biden’s the only one who can. But it looks, at this point, like he might have the best chance. That’s not a be-all, end-all, depending on what those chances are, and the chances might certainly change before the primaries, but it’s certainly relevant.
yes!
i’m more likely to vote libertarian, but the worst thing trump has done in office is renew the sort of legislation that biden has actually written himself.
the wall is stupid-- hillary voted for it years before trump supported it. immigration is complicated, dems (even pm trudeau in canada) have said most of the things trump has said.
granted, the delivery upsets the left. if people paid more attention to votes, context and legislation, they would realise that biden is even farther from centre than trump is. if you believe in horseshoe theory, you should vote for trump to keep biden out-- or better yet, vote for someone based on the sort of legislation and civil liberties they actually support-- not their words on the campaign and other false promises.
like writing the patriot act, the biggest loss to the constitution since-- when?
sanders was fine. would be perfectly happy with president sanders. he would be president now, if not for hillary.
So Trump’s unbeatable, except by Biden.
Maybe you missed November 2018.
I don’t think it’ll crush the Dems’ chances to have a debate over issues and policy. You apparently do. I don’t think there’s any way to resolve that except to agree to disagree.
Look for the words “single-issue package” in my previous post.
‘Pristine’? I brought up three different reasons why Biden shouldn’t be considered. In a normal year, each of them would, IMHO, be disqualifying by itself.
In 2020, we’ve got to have a President who will do what’s necessary to save the planet. Biden’s not it. He’ll be all gentlemanly with the Republicans, and the filibuster will stay, and they’ll use it, and my son will live long enough to see what happens when we don’t do something about global warming in time to make a difference.
There’s three possibilities in 2020 and 2021:
- Trump wins, and we do nothing about global warming.
- A Dem wins, but we don’t do much about global warming.
- A Dem wins, and we go big in addressing global warming.
AFAIAC, #1 and #2 don’t differ by enough to matter. Time is running out.
Even though I think he’s far too inexperienced, I’d rather have Pete Buttigieg as the Dem nominee any day. Maybe he’s never been more than the mayor of South Bend, but he knows what the score is. Biden’s head is back with TipnRonnie.
Global warming’s why Biden should at all costs be stopped, but the Bankruptcy Act is something that people have already gotten hammered by. Liz Warren knows this, and is ready to take him down.
The problem with this attitude is that it’s not playing to win, it’s playing to not lose. This gets you the Hillary, Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis campaigns.
nm
Do you think the candidates believe beating Trump is more important than self-promotion and one-upsmanship?
Even if you are correct that unity will be better for beating Trump, I believe your view of pols is rather naive.
I agree. “I’m a Democrat, and I’m not Trump” may not be enough of a message to win. (“I’m not Trump” should have been enough for Hillary, and we saw how well that worked.) The Dem candidate better have charisma to burn and offer ideas credible enough to capture purple rust belters and suburbanites.
And the only way to suss that person out is through a year-plus of scrutiny that may, at times, get nasty.
I would hope that, once it’s down to this person vs. Individual #1, Dem voters will forgive the nastiness and grasp the big picture.
Well, only three of them so far believe in being able to do stuff once they beat Trump. (Warren, Buttigieg, and Inslee. Those are the only ones, AFAICT, who are willing to entertain the idea of killing the filibuster.) And since the world needs saving in fairly short order, that’s rather important.
Killing the filibuster isn’t really up to the president anyways. You’ll probably want to check what Schumer thinks of the idea.
I’m fully aware of that. But it’s gonna take some pressure for getting rid of it to make it happen. That’s going to have to happen in the Presidential campaign, not in individual Senate races. And I can tell you right away that if the Dems elect a President who isn’t eager to get rid of the filibuster, it stays.
Yeah, I don’t get why RTFirefly has decided killing the filibuster is some important part of the presidential election.
What part of my explanation don’t you understand?
I mean, you can say, “RTFirefly says X, Y, and Z about the importance of killing the filibuster, and why it needs to be an issue in the Presidential campaign, but I think his reasoning is all wrong on account of A, B, and C.”
Or you could just say, “RTFirefly has decided killing the filibuster is some important part of the presidential election, and I haven’t bothered to read his posts to find out why he thinks that, but I thought I’d jump in anyway to say I don’t understand why he feels this way.”
It’s a free country.
I can’t speak for RTFirefly but it needs to go if anything is to get done. Imagine a best case scenario. The Democratic nominee wins. Democrats win the competitive senate races in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, and Maine. Trump is a drag on the Republican incumbents and seats flip in very close races in North Carolina, Texas, and in a shocker even Lindsey Graham loses in South Carolina. Somehow or another Doug Jones hangs on in Alabama. Even in this scenario the Democrats would need six Republican senators to overcome a filibuster. And with the scenario I outlined that just got harder because the Republicans most likely to cross over like Susan Collins and Cory Gardner just lost. Even if somehow the 2022 midterms go really well, which is highly unlikely after a huge blue wave in 2020, it’s still unlikely for Democrats to reach 60 senators. And what will happen then? Nothing will get done because of Mitch McConnell causing senate gridlock but the people will blame Democrats and we would be looking at another 1994 or 2010.
Yeppers to all this. 
I don’t mind the squabbling now as only the political nerds are paying attention. We do need make damn sure we don’t have the endless conspiracy theories that really hurt in 2016. I don’t think that’s likely to happen this time around with such a large field of candidates.
I remain optimistic that 3rd parties won’t be an issue for 2020. Nader had no effect in 2004 after being a spoiler in 2000. While Hillary may not be an asset on the campaign trail, she can do a job by attacking the nuttiness of Jill Stein or whatever 3rd party loons run.
I am late to the party, but I just want to voice my disagreement with the premise of this thread. Yes, we gotta win this one, but I don’t want to live in a world where I can’t call Biden a corporate whore.
Sorry, but the wrong nominee is only so much help.
This is exactly what will get trump re-elected in 2020.
I disagree. We don’t want another Dem leader who is little more than Republican lite. Biden is too cozy with the wealthy to do what is required, is too cozy with Thurmond types, and overall Delaware is not IMHO a model for the rest of the nation.
We would do far, far better with Hickenlooper if you want a moderate. He is not perfect but also hardly damnable, and CO has done very well under him.
This “don’t fight it out!” approach is going to leave the D’s in a place where they suffer from one if Hillary’s biggest weaknesses: lack of authenticity. No thanks.