Who is going to be the Democrat nominee in 2020?

tommygun711

You don't have the capability for mayhem
Jun 4, 2013
11,834
2,942
29
Based on what?

:hat
Well based on a multitude of reasons.

For starters Bernie had the progressive consistency that Hillary didn't have. You can actually believe what he is saying, he didn't have public & private views. You can't dig up quotes and videos of Bernie arguing for the Iraq war or calling black people super predators. You can find old videos of Bernie consistently arguing for the working class, the same working class demographic that supported Trump.. Bernie's views on trade, foreign policy sounded very similar to Trump's message, as they are both populists on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Trump somehow shifted to the left of Hillary on these issues, whereas Hillary DID support TPP, NAFTA, she did support the Iraq war. Bernie had a wide appeal, especially with independents, atheists, young progressives, anti war libertarians, etc. I think Bernie wouldn't have lost the rust belt states to Trump like Hillary did. I mean, somehow Hillary managed to lose Pennsylvania to Trump. She lost fucking MICHIGAN to Trump. I don't think Bernie would have lost those states. Lots of Trump supporters liked Bernie, they both had that outsider anti establishment appeal.


also Bernie is pretty much scandal free. Strategically, Trump wouldn't have all of this ammunition to use on Bernie like he did with Hillary. The best thing Trump could have done with Bernie in the debates is label him a socialist/communist and I think that smear would have failed. Trump is a brawler, probably the best trash talker/verbal assassin that the political world has ever seen. Bernie would have countered Trump's bluster with his own facts, he wouldn't have corny throwaway lines like "trump'd up trickledown economics" or "Trump is putin's puppet".

Bernie also significantly polled better vs Trump than Hillary did. You can say these polls mean nothing, etc - but Trump's internal campaign polling even confirmed that they were worried about Bernie.
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,467
11,706
Well based on a multitude of reasons.

For starters Bernie had the progressive consistency that Hillary didn't have. You can actually believe what he is saying, he didn't have public & private views. You can't dig up quotes and videos of Bernie arguing for the Iraq war or calling black people super predators. You can find old videos of Bernie consistently arguing for the working class, the same working class demographic that supported Trump.. Bernie's views on trade, foreign policy sounded very similar to Trump's message, as they are both populists on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Trump somehow shifted to the left of Hillary on these issues, whereas Hillary DID support TPP, NAFTA, she did support the Iraq war. Bernie had a wide appeal, especially with independents, atheists, young progressives, anti war libertarians, etc. I think Bernie wouldn't have lost the rust belt states to Trump like Hillary did. I mean, somehow Hillary managed to lose Pennsylvania to Trump. She lost fucking MICHIGAN to Trump. I don't think Bernie would have lost those states. Lots of Trump supporters liked Bernie, they both had that outsider anti establishment appeal.


also Bernie is pretty much scandal free. Strategically, Trump wouldn't have all of this ammunition to use on Bernie like he did with Hillary. The best thing Trump could have done with Bernie in the debates is label him a socialist/communist and I think that smear would have failed. Trump is a brawler, probably the best trash talker/verbal assassin that the political world has ever seen. Bernie would have countered Trump's bluster with his own facts, he wouldn't have corny throwaway lines like "trump'd up trickledown economics" or "Trump is putin's puppet".

Bernie also significantly polled better vs Trump than Hillary did. You can say these polls mean nothing, etc - but Trump's internal campaign polling even confirmed that they were worried about Bernie.
Good post, but.........



Bernie had essentially zero black support, and he had never been subjected to a proper months-long Republican attack campaign.

:hat
 

tommygun711

You don't have the capability for mayhem
Jun 4, 2013
11,834
2,942
29
Good post, but.........



Bernie had essentially zero black support, and he had never been subjected to a proper months-long Republican attack campaign.

:hat
I don't think the commie smear would work, that is like the same thing as calling Trump a nazi, it's way over the top and if you know anything about history you know that kind of comparison is invalid.

Now, if it were Trump vs Bernie do you really think black voters or voters of color would go with Trump? I fucking doubt it. Trump performed well with the Hispanic vote and he somehow got 8% of the black vote in 2016, I think Bernie would do just fine with those demographics.
 
Reactions: Okoye and Joe E

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,065
5,690
Well based on a multitude of reasons.

For starters Bernie had the progressive consistency that Hillary didn't have. You can actually believe what he is saying, he didn't have public & private views. You can't dig up quotes and videos of Bernie arguing for the Iraq war or calling black people super predators. You can find old videos of Bernie consistently arguing for the working class, the same working class demographic that supported Trump.. Bernie's views on trade, foreign policy sounded very similar to Trump's message, as they are both populists on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Trump somehow shifted to the left of Hillary on these issues, whereas Hillary DID support TPP, NAFTA, she did support the Iraq war. Bernie had a wide appeal, especially with independents, atheists, young progressives, anti war libertarians, etc. I think Bernie wouldn't have lost the rust belt states to Trump like Hillary did. I mean, somehow Hillary managed to lose Pennsylvania to Trump. She lost fucking MICHIGAN to Trump. I don't think Bernie would have lost those states. Lots of Trump supporters liked Bernie, they both had that outsider anti establishment appeal.


also Bernie is pretty much scandal free. Strategically, Trump wouldn't have all of this ammunition to use on Bernie like he did with Hillary. The best thing Trump could have done with Bernie in the debates is label him a socialist/communist and I think that smear would have failed. Trump is a brawler, probably the best trash talker/verbal assassin that the political world has ever seen. Bernie would have countered Trump's bluster with his own facts, he wouldn't have corny throwaway lines like "trump'd up trickledown economics" or "Trump is putin's puppet".

Bernie also significantly polled better vs Trump than Hillary did. You can say these polls mean nothing, etc - but Trump's internal campaign polling even confirmed that they were worried about Bernie.
Absolutely. Campaigning against Clinton was infinitely easier. As she had a record that could easily be picked apart. TPP, NAFTA, Iraq War, et al, as noted. Putting her at odds with the Democrats base. She could've ran as a Republican based on her support of those issues alone. Add to that that she is probably the most unappealing person in American politics and her loss was predictable. Those issues also put Trump at odds with the Republican establishment as well but appealed to the base. One of the keys to his success. Trump was the benefactor of a near perfect political storm. Much like Obama was in 08. The nation wanted change. Clinton was stale bread. See clear. Trump 2020
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,467
11,706
Absolutely. Campaigning against Clinton was infinitely easier. As she had a record that could easily be picked apart. TPP, NAFTA, Iraq War, et al, as noted. Putting her at odds with the Democrats base. She could've ran as a Republican based on her support of those issues alone. Add to that that she is probably the most unappealing person in American politics and her loss was predictable. Those issues also put Trump at odds with the Republican establishment as well but appealed to the base. One of the keys to his success. Trump was the benefactor of a near perfect political storm. Much like Obama was in 08. The nation wanted change. Clinton was stale bread. See clear. Trump 2020
Joe, do you still claim that Sandy Hook was a false flag?

:hat
 

tommygun711

You don't have the capability for mayhem
Jun 4, 2013
11,834
2,942
29
Absolutely. Campaigning against Clinton was infinitely easier. As she had a record that could easily be picked apart. TPP, NAFTA, Iraq War, et al, as noted. Putting her at odds with the Democrats base. She could've ran as a Republican based on her support of those issues alone. Add to that that she is probably the most unappealing person in American politics and her loss was predictable. Those issues also put Trump at odds with the Republican establishment as well but appealed to the base. One of the keys to his success. Trump was the benefactor of a near perfect political storm. Much like Obama was in 08. The nation wanted change. Clinton was stale bread. See clear. Trump 2020
100% correct. Trump was simply an insurgent candidate, an outsider, and so was Bernie. Clinton was the establishment pick. However if you pit two insurgent, populist, anti establishment candidates against eachother you have a completely different race. I think the debates between Trump and Bernie would have been fire

I think 2020 is an entirely different dynamic because candidate Trump is different from president Trump, Trump has IMO governed from the corporate center, in some regards, and he hasn't really delivered on many of his promises. We will see. I'm undecided as to whether or not he gets reelected.
 
Reactions: Okoye and Joe E

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,065
5,690
100% correct. Trump was simply an insurgent candidate, an outsider, and so was Bernie. Clinton was the establishment pick. However if you pit two insurgent, populist, anti establishment candidates against eachother you have a completely different race. I think the debates between Trump and Bernie would have been fire

I think 2020 is an entirely different dynamic because candidate Trump is different from president Trump, Trump has IMO governed from the corporate center, in some regards, and he hasn't really delivered on many of his promises. We will see. I'm undecided as to whether or not he gets reelected.
Absolutely, and that was their appeal. Sanders was a trail blazer in a sense. Resurrecting old line Democrat issues such as universal healthcare for instance. A living minimum wage. Issues broached by FDR and Truman. As for Trump as POTUS? The country is at peace at the moment and prosperous. That'll be his rap. Add to that the fact Biden, the presumed nominee, is a mess, and I like Trumps chances.
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,467
11,706
100% correct. Trump was simply an insurgent candidate, an outsider, and so was Bernie. Clinton was the establishment pick. However if you pit two insurgent, populist, anti establishment candidates against eachother you have a completely different race. I think the debates between Trump and Bernie would have been fire

I think 2020 is an entirely different dynamic because candidate Trump is different from president Trump, Trump has IMO governed from the corporate center, in some regards, and he hasn't really delivered on many of his promises. We will see. I'm undecided as to whether or not he gets reelected.
Maybe he would have won. But....

1) Hillary trounced him all over the South and the swing states in the primaries. She beat him 2 to 1 in Florida and beat him by 13 points in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Bernie needs all 3 of them to win the general.

2) It's easy to forget that Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million, and lost the election because Trump shaded her in a small handful of swing states where she had beaten Bernie handily.

3) Who is Bernie's base? College educated young people. Who don't turn out to vote, who Trumptards are well trained to hate, and who Hillary won vs Trump anyway.

4) What's the most success a self-described socialist has ever had in national-level American politics?

:hat
 

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,065
5,690
Maybe he would have won. But....

1) Hillary trounced him all over the South and the swing states in the primaries. She beat him 2 to 1 in Florida and beat him by 13 points in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Bernie needs all 3 of them to win the general.

2) It's easy to forget that Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million, and lost the election because Trump shaded her in a small handful of swing states where she had beaten Bernie handily.

3) Who is Bernie's base? College educated young people. Who don't turn out to vote, who Trumptards are well trained to hate, and who Hillary won vs Trump anyway.

4) What's the most success a self-described socialist has ever had in national-level American politics?

:hat
Stupid Rudder. With each and every post you demonstrate your rank ignorance of the American electorate and politic.
 

tommygun711

You don't have the capability for mayhem
Jun 4, 2013
11,834
2,942
29
Maybe he would have won. But....

1) Hillary trounced him all over the South and the swing states in the primaries. She beat him 2 to 1 in Florida and beat him by 13 points in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Bernie needs all 3 of them to win the general.

2) It's easy to forget that Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million, and lost the election because Trump shaded her in a small handful of swing states where she had beaten Bernie handily.

3) Who is Bernie's base? College educated young people. Who don't turn out to vote, who Trumptards are well trained to hate, and who Hillary won vs Trump anyway.

4) What's the most success a self-described socialist has ever had in national-level American politics?

:hat
I don't think Hillary beating Bernie in the primary is relevant to a general election discussion. Entirely different match up. Corporate democrats were afraid of the word socialism. Wanted someone that was easier to control than Bernie. DNC rigged the primary, we all know this. Super delegates, etc.

Bernie is not even an outright socialist, I would say he is basically a social democrat and this is an important distinction as he basically just wants to expand social programs within a capitalistic system. So, not a complete socialist.

Who. Cares. About. The. Popular. Vote. It literally means nothing, especially in terms of this discussion, unless you are arguing for abolishing the electoral college? Hillary won the popular vote due to new york and california. Hillary lost the election because her campaign thought she automatically won Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and so she underestimated the danger in the rust belt states.

 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,467
11,706
I don't think Hillary beating Bernie in the primary is relevant to a general election discussion. Entirely different match up. Corporate democrats were afraid of the word socialism. Wanted someone that was easier to control than Bernie. DNC rigged the primary, we all know this. Super delegates, etc.
It's a fair point. :thumbsup

I've been hearing this "Bernie would have won the whole thing" for two years now though. (Not just from you.) Based on what? Why is Bernie so electable?

Bernie is not even an outright socialist, I would say he is basically a social democrat and this is an important distinction as he basically just wants to expand social programs within a capitalistic system. So, not a complete socialist.
It doesn't matter what he is, it only matters what he's painted as. And Bernie has never faced the Republican attack machine. He barely got attacked during the primaries because Hillary was always comfortably ahead.

Who. Cares. About. The. Popular. Vote. It literally means nothing, especially in terms of this discussion, unless you are arguing for abolishing the electoral college? Hillary won the popular vote due to new york and california. Hillary lost the election because her campaign thought she automatically won Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and so she underestimated the danger in the rust belt states.
There's a pretty good argument for abolishing the Electoral College, or at least heavily reforming it. Why should half a dozen flyover shithole states decide every single election?

Yep there's a lot of red on that map. Pretty visually misleading though, considering that the blue counties/districts generated more votes than all of those sparsely-populated rural areas did. :thumbsup

Also, you didn't answer. What's the most successful nationalwide political campaign by a self-described socialist?

Bonus question - what's the most successful political campaign a Jew has ever run across the South?

:hat
 

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,065
5,690
There's a pretty good argument for abolishing the Electoral College, or at least heavily reforming it. Why should half a dozen flyover shithole states decide every single election?


Yep there's a lot of red on that map. Pretty visually misleading though, considering that the blue counties/districts generated more votes than all of those sparsely-populated rural areas did. :thumbsup



:hat
You're a fucking Idiot. You've just made a case for the existence of the Electoral College. Why should two states dictate the outcome of an election? :rofl
 
Reactions: Duo and VinoVeritas

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,467
11,706
You're a fucking Idiot. You've just made a case for the existence of the Electoral College. Why should two states dictate the outcome of an election? :rofl
Why should Alex Jones be sued for harassing Sandy Hook parents when their kids either never existed at all, or were killed by Obama's goons so he could take your guns away?

:hat
 

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,065
5,690
Reactions: VinoVeritas

tezel8764

Editor Extraordinaire
May 16, 2013
3,417
753
I just find it weird that only 45% of the US voted. It’s so weird coming from a country with compulsory voting. Like half don’t give a shit lmao.
 
Reactions: Super_Fly_Sam

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,065
5,690
None of those names can appeal to progressives, working class rust belt voters, millennials who sat out the last election or the centrists who don't want Trump. Kamela Harris in particular is as corporate as they come. Joe Biden and Bernie are too old and white. Elizabeth Warren would be too easy of a target for Trump.

The dems are going to need someone genuine, someone with a strong economic message and someone who won't go crazy with identity politics. Right now it seems like they don't have the talent pool to beat Trump if I'm being honest. They would rather campaign on Russia and being anti-trump, instead of having their own message. Dems need their own identity and need a candidate that isn't just "slightly better than Trump"

Tulsi Gabbard is the one.

Pro drug legalisation ✔
anti war ✔
somewhat pro gun ✔
anti establishment ✔
Keynesian economically ✔
supports green energy ✔
supports universal healthcare✔

Makes her a non starter given the current state of the Democrats. Sorry about that, Tommy.

Pro drug legalization
anti war
somewhat pro gun
anti establishment
Keynesian economically
supports green energy
supports universal healthcare
 

mandela

CHB Führer
May 16, 2013
22,653
10,104
Scotland
I just find it weird that only 45% of the US voted. It’s so weird coming from a country with compulsory voting. Like half don’t give a shit lmao.
They have an appalling 'democracy' in America, tbh.

Basically two parties that are barely indistinguishable on 90% of policy, massively funded by corporations and special interests, and whoever gets the most votes doesn't necessarily win.

Laughable that they see themselves as bastions of democracy, really. Pure ignorance, perfectly supplemented by arrogance.
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
34,467
11,706
They have an appalling 'democracy' in America, tbh.

Basically two parties that are barely indistinguishable on 90% of policy, massively funded by corporations and special interests, and whoever gets the most votes doesn't necessarily win.

Laughable that they see themselves as bastions of democracy, really. Pure ignorance, perfectly supplemented by arrogance.
It is amusing and irritating at the same time.

Yeah..... great democracy there. Only two parties exist, they won't work together on anything except sucking lobbyist dick, and the party that comes second in a two-horse race still wins the White House in 40% of the elections this century.

Who do you want? The climate change deniers who literally appoint coal-industry lobbyists to run the Environmental Protection Agency, or the social justice warriors?

:hat
 

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,065
5,690
It is amusing and irritating at the same time.

Yeah..... great democracy there...

:hat
You know what's really amusing, Rudder? You not knowing the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic and not a "Democracy" Secondly, your insistence on discussing things you don't understand.
 
Reactions: Duo and VinoVeritas