2020 presidential candidate 'crats

[MakeItRain]

I think parties follow their base - not the other way around.

I don't necessarily disagree. Growing dissatisfaction with Obama doing basically nothing to push liberal causes combined with a pretty charismatic progressive leader in Sanders kind of fed on each other. And yeah I'm sure a more firm rejection of Trump contributed to the shift, too. It's a combination of everything.

great minds, rusty, great minds

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Is there anything beyond ego that precludes any of these people from becoming a pres/vp tag team right now?

Damn _33 senior you asked this question in January. I don't think any of these people will be a VP candidate for any of the others, it doesn't make sense. The most fitting one to be a VP is Steyer. They aren't going to ask a white dude and he wouldn't do it if asked. Harris and Booker might be choices for any of the moderates. Sanders and Warren will likely choose someone you've never heard of.

I agree. As a POC, does this racial pandering appeal to you?

Only your racist ass would think expanding that opportunity beyond the mediocre white man, who has always served in that role, pandering. White males account for roughly 35% of the population, expecting representation from the other 65% of the population is pandering? You don't think there are women and minorities from both parties that are smarter and more dynamic than Mike Pence, Joe Biden, Dick Chaney, Al Gore, Dan Quayle, and George Bush?

You think you are so smart and savvy, but you couldn't avoid this very obvious self own. Whatever minor league you spent time at the last few months at trying to hone your skills at, grossly failed you. Try smarter, not harder, troll.

You and I both know that short of some hinky compromise out of a brokered convention, the VP is going to be a black woman whose last name rhymes with Abrams.

[Trim]

Is there anything beyond ego that precludes any of these people from becoming a pres/vp tag team right now?

Damn _33 senior you asked this question in January. I don't think any of these people will be a VP candidate for any of the others, it doesn't make sense. The most fitting one to be a VP is Steyer. They aren't going to ask a white dude and he wouldn't do it if asked. Harris and Booker might be choices for any of the moderates. Sanders and Warren will likely choose someone you've never heard of.

Yeah, but now it’s the end of February and things are more clear. Warren should be Sanders’ VP and Pete should be Biden’s.

It’s dumb that we have to pick from these people without knowing who most of their team would be. At least having the VP picked isn’t much to ask, and it would narrow the field.

Nah, you have to pick a VP that would broaden your appeal. Warren could do that to an extent for Sanders, but there are choices that give him more of a shot in the arm, same that could be said for Biden and Pete. There are lots of young, dynamic, moderates out there that haven't spent six months pissing off a large percentage of the electorate.

Sure, I understand that, but with things so tight just to get out of this semifinal round, there's logic to pairing up with someone both people's fans would support and combining that support to advance.

[MakeItRain]

Is there anything beyond ego that precludes any of these people from becoming a pres/vp tag team right now?

Damn _33 senior you asked this question in January. I don't think any of these people will be a VP candidate for any of the others, it doesn't make sense. The most fitting one to be a VP is Steyer. They aren't going to ask a white dude and he wouldn't do it if asked. Harris and Booker might be choices for any of the moderates. Sanders and Warren will likely choose someone you've never heard of.

I agree. As a POC, does this racial pandering appeal to you?

Only your racist ass would think expanding that opportunity beyond the mediocre white man, who has always served in that role, pandering. White males account for roughly 35% of the population, expecting representation from the other 65% of the population is pandering? You don't think there are women and minorities from both parties that are smarter and more dynamic than Mike Pence, Joe Biden, Dick Chaney, Al Gore, Dan Quayle, and George Bush?

You think you are so smart and savvy, but you couldn't avoid this very obvious self own. Whatever minor league you spent time at the last few months at trying to hone your skills at, grossly failed you. Try smarter, not harder, troll.

You and I both know that short of some hinky compromise out of a brokered convention, the VP is going to be a black woman whose last name rhymes with Abrams.

Yeah, stupid. I said that in this thread, last week.

[MakeItRain]

Is there anything beyond ego that precludes any of these people from becoming a pres/vp tag team right now?

Damn _33 senior you asked this question in January. I don't think any of these people will be a VP candidate for any of the others, it doesn't make sense. The most fitting one to be a VP is Steyer. They aren't going to ask a white dude and he wouldn't do it if asked. Harris and Booker might be choices for any of the moderates. Sanders and Warren will likely choose someone you've never heard of.

Yeah, but now it’s the end of February and things are more clear. Warren should be Sanders’ VP and Pete should be Biden’s.

It’s dumb that we have to pick from these people without knowing who most of their team would be. At least having the VP picked isn’t much to ask, and it would narrow the field.

Nah, you have to pick a VP that would broaden your appeal. Warren could do that to an extent for Sanders, but there are choices that give him more of a shot in the arm, same that could be said for Biden and Pete. There are lots of young, dynamic, moderates out there that haven't spent six months pissing off a large percentage of the electorate.

Sure, I understand that, but with things so tight just to get out of this semifinal round, there's logic to pairing up with someone both people's fans would support and combining that support to advance.

Not necessary. Super Tuesday is going to be a bloodbath.

[Trim]

Is there anything beyond ego that precludes any of these people from becoming a pres/vp tag team right now?

Damn _33 senior you asked this question in January. I don't think any of these people will be a VP candidate for any of the others, it doesn't make sense. The most fitting one to be a VP is Steyer. They aren't going to ask a white dude and he wouldn't do it if asked. Harris and Booker might be choices for any of the moderates. Sanders and Warren will likely choose someone you've never heard of.

Yeah, but now it’s the end of February and things are more clear. Warren should be Sanders’ VP and Pete should be Biden’s.

It’s dumb that we have to pick from these people without knowing who most of their team would be. At least having the VP picked isn’t much to ask, and it would narrow the field.

Nah, you have to pick a VP that would broaden your appeal. Warren could do that to an extent for Sanders, but there are choices that give him more of a shot in the arm, same that could be said for Biden and Pete. There are lots of young, dynamic, moderates out there that haven't spent six months pissing off a large percentage of the electorate.

Sure, I understand that, but with things so tight just to get out of this semifinal round, there's logic to pairing up with someone both people's fans would support and combining that support to advance.

Not necessary. Super Tuesday is going to be a bloodbath.

Well, it'd be appreciated if they self-narrowed themselves down now so that voters could vote for the people they truly wanted to be the executive team rather than voting to achieve a result based on pluralities and delegate schemes and who'll still be running weeks or months later.

[MakeItRain]

Is there anything beyond ego that precludes any of these people from becoming a pres/vp tag team right now?

Damn _33 senior you asked this question in January. I don't think any of these people will be a VP candidate for any of the others, it doesn't make sense. The most fitting one to be a VP is Steyer. They aren't going to ask a white dude and he wouldn't do it if asked. Harris and Booker might be choices for any of the moderates. Sanders and Warren will likely choose someone you've never heard of.

Yeah, but now it’s the end of February and things are more clear. Warren should be Sanders’ VP and Pete should be Biden’s.

It’s dumb that we have to pick from these people without knowing who most of their team would be. At least having the VP picked isn’t much to ask, and it would narrow the field.

Nah, you have to pick a VP that would broaden your appeal. Warren could do that to an extent for Sanders, but there are choices that give him more of a shot in the arm, same that could be said for Biden and Pete. There are lots of young, dynamic, moderates out there that haven't spent six months pissing off a large percentage of the electorate.

Sure, I understand that, but with things so tight just to get out of this semifinal round, there's logic to pairing up with someone both people's fans would support and combining that support to advance.

Not necessary. Super Tuesday is going to be a bloodbath.

Well, it'd be appreciated if they self-narrowed themselves down now so that voters could vote for the people they truly wanted to be the executive team rather than voting to achieve a result based on pluralities and delegate schemes and who'll still be running weeks or months later.

Wouldn't people quitting cut down the possibility of voting for "people they truly wanted to be the executive team?" Do you know or have heard of anyone voting at this point "to achieve a result based on pluralities and delegate schemes and who'll still be running weeks or months later?" I haven't seen a Warren or Pete supporter say yet, well I like A, but I'm voting for B because my person is going to lose. I can identify that Bernie is going to win, but if I were voting on Super Tuesday I wouldn't vote for him. This process isn't any different than any other primary process has been. 2% of the delegates have been awarded to this point, I'm unclear as to why you think all of these people should be dropping out right now.

[chum1]

Ugh

https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/1233157868595109891

[MakeItRain]

If Bernie fails to get Medicare 4 ALL and settles for a public option we will be where Obama wanted to be in '08. It would obviously be a vast improvement, but also a big disappointment. Why is this so hard to understand?

This is probably just a rehash of the previous convo with different verbiage.

It's interesting in that it makes it seem like support for Bernie is more about the right way for how to push progressivism than outcomes in his presidency (caveat being if you believe in Bernie as a messenger ect. you then believe he will achieve more and anyone else isn't effective because Obama proved it).

The right way to push progressivisim? What does that mean, either one has progressive ideals or they don't. The outcomes aren't controllable, to an extent anyway, the intent is. There is and should be a purity test for progressive candidates, in all political races. There was absolutely a purity test for the two conservative movements that both pushed America right (Contract with America and the Tea Party Movement), why wouldn't there be with progressives? What's the point of having a movement if you have leaders that don't truly believe in the message?

[MakeItRain]

Ugh

https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/1233157868595109891

Talk of polling irregularities, either way, it doesn't matter. I think it's cute that Biden is putting all of his eggs in the South Carolina basket, a good showing there doesn't even offset the first three horrific performances he had. He also knows what Super Tuesday is going to look like. It couldn't have been a worst grouping of states for him to build momentum off of, and he won't have time to even get the messaging out there that he is building something. His campaign today that they are going to spend "six figures" on the Super Tuesday states. Six figures spread out over 14 of some of the most populous states in the country is hella lol. The dude is broke and is going to get his head kicked in on Tuesday.

[Trim]

Wouldn't people quitting cut down the possibility of voting for "people they truly wanted to be the executive team?"

No.  If the similar candidates were paired/teamed together, it'd be easier to just vote for the team your favorite is on rather than having to worry if you're wasting a vote because your favorite won't get to 15% or whatever, or not even be running the next day.

Do you know or have heard of anyone voting at this point "to achieve a result based on pluralities and delegate schemes and who'll still be running weeks or months later?"

Yes, that's primarily what me and my dog's rehab techs talked about during the 20 minutes of water treadmill yesterday.

I haven't seen a Warren or Pete supporter say yet, well I like A, but I'm voting for B because my person is going to lose.

Does Klobuchar count?  This was the first one I saw on sys' timeline.

https://twitter.com/boardingsoon/status/1232669422705311744

I can identify that Bernie is going to win, but if I were voting on Super Tuesday I wouldn't vote for him. This process isn't any different than any other primary process has been. 2% of the delegates have been awarded to this point, I'm unclear as to why you think all of these people should be dropping out right now.

I'm waiting until the last possible minute to see what the field and numbers are before I pick, and it'll almost certainly be based on number manipulation as much as anything else including who I think will be best.

If not people dropping out earlier, maybe the primaries should go to a playoff/bracket system of one-on-one eliminations.

[MakeItRain]

Wouldn't people quitting cut down the possibility of voting for "people they truly wanted to be the executive team?"

No.  If the similar candidates were paired/teamed together, it'd be easier to just vote for the team your favorite is on rather than having to worry if you're wasting a vote because your favorite won't get to 15% or whatever, or not even be running the next day.

Do you know or have heard of anyone voting at this point "to achieve a result based on pluralities and delegate schemes and who'll still be running weeks or months later?"

Yes, that's primarily what me and my dog's rehab techs talked about during the 20 minutes of water treadmill yesterday.

I haven't seen a Warren or Pete supporter say yet, well I like A, but I'm voting for B because my person is going to lose.

Does Klobuchar count?  This was the first one I saw on sys' timeline.

https://twitter.com/boardingsoon/status/1232669422705311744

I can identify that Bernie is going to win, but if I were voting on Super Tuesday I wouldn't vote for him. This process isn't any different than any other primary process has been. 2% of the delegates have been awarded to this point, I'm unclear as to why you think all of these people should be dropping out right now.

I'm waiting until the last possible minute to see what the field and numbers are before I pick, and it'll almost certainly be based on number manipulation as much as anything else including who I think will be best.

If not people dropping out earlier, maybe the primaries should go to a playoff/bracket system of one-on-one eliminations.

You seem hell bent on going with this so I'm going to let you. I can't convince you that there are only two choices, so I won't. The next debate is right before your primary. Like everyone else who votes in a primary or caucus, you're going to base your vote on several factors, including who is in the race at the time. Candidate consolidation hasn't happened in our lifetime, seems weird to want, or even think it's a remote possibility or anything that would even be helpful now. I don't even get the point of this hypothetical.

[MakeItRain]

If Bernie fails to get Medicare 4 ALL and settles for a public option we will be where Obama wanted to be in '08. It would obviously be a vast improvement, but also a big disappointment. Why is this so hard to understand?

This is probably just a rehash of the previous convo with different verbiage.

It's interesting in that it makes it seem like support for Bernie is more about the right way for how to push progressivism than outcomes in his presidency (caveat being if you believe in Bernie as a messenger ect. you then believe he will achieve more and anyone else isn't effective because Obama proved it).

The right way to push progressivisim? What does that mean, either one has progressive ideals or they don't. The outcomes aren't controllable, to an extent anyway, the intent is. There is and should be a purity test for progressive candidates, in all political races. There was absolutely a purity test for the two conservative movements that both pushed America right (Contract with America and the Tea Party Movement), why wouldn't there be with progressives? What's the point of having a movement if you have leaders that don't truly believe in the message?

Incrementalism is not how progressive ideals are to be presented is what I come to with Bernie. Ties into a movement I suppose, not inspiring to say there will be steady progress that may be 3 steps forward and two steps back.

When you were trying to win your parties nomination, incrementalism isn't going to be presented by anyone. You're trying to separate yourself from other people with somewhat similar viewpoints. Why would you waist time discussing how you're going to compromise once your hopes and dreams won't work? Like you said selling a movement makes clarity on the message even more important. If he decided now, to start talking about concessions to MFA, that wouldn't be seen as a strong argument by anyone. The MFA opponents would talk about how it shows that he doesn't believe in his own plan. Pete did exactly this with Bernie and the filibuster on Tuesday night.

[Trim]

@sys, tell me by about 6pm on 3/10 who to vote for given all the factors as they are at that time.

[sys]

https://twitter.com/ShaneGoldmacher/status/1233220460122341376

something, something wine caves.

[sys]

@sys, tell me by about 6pm on 3/10 who to vote for given all the factors as they are at that time.

right now the only candidates with a realistic (over 1%) chance of winning are sanders and biden, so whichever you prefer of those two.  if something changes in the race to make that no longer the case, it will certainly be discussed in this thread.

[sys]

[Trim]

@sys, tell me by about 6pm on 3/10 who to vote for given all the factors as they are at that time.

right now the only candidates with a realistic (over 1%) chance of winning are sanders and biden, so whichever you prefer of those two.  if something changes in the race to make that no longer the case, it will certainly be discussed in this thread.

Biden, but if there's someone other than Biden I should vote for in order to help cause the requisite chaos where someone other than Sanders would get the nomination despite him having a plurality, I'd do that.

[Spracne]

Literal lol

[DaBigTrain]

Good one slukeys

[Rage Against the McKee]

Big Train left the joke at the station.

[star seed 7]

 

[8manpick]

Beautiful

@sys's post

[catastrophe]

Love

[MakeItRain]

Holy crap, it took me a minute