A lot of Sanders voters didn’t even get to vote in the primary (especially in Cali and NY), or his totals would have been even higher.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Politics: 2020 Dem POTUS candidate catch all discussion thread
- Thread starter Bamaro
- Start date
- Status
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I like Sanders and Biden much more than any of the others. This is a tough decision for Biden. It's quite a distinction to hold the office but it's also a huge responsibility that will absorb his life for the next 5 years minimum. I think you also have to factor in he was there with Barack for those 8 long years. He's got a lot to consider before deciding.
Biden could win. Bernie would have a tougher time and even though I don't agree with him on many things I can respect him.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/long-haired-prophet-pointing-in-front-of-dramatic-sky-477446432-59d2c28bb501e80010d247ac.jpg)
I said somewhere in a recent post that there should be an age limit on being POTUS. There is a lower limit of 35, why not an upper limit of 65-72? I realize there are a lot of seniors who are quite healthy and active, but generally speaking most seniors have or will have physical and in some case mental issues. I do wonder about the overall stamina of someone 70+ like Biden, Sanders and others.
While I do respect Bernie, his politics, IMO, are just too far left for the American electorate right now. America today is still more likely to elect an ultra conservative over a democrat socialist, he just does not appeal to the moderates. My fear is that Bernie's campaign damages the chances of the democrats in 2020.
While I do respect Bernie, his politics, IMO, are just too far left for the American electorate right now. America today is still more likely to elect an ultra conservative over a democrat socialist, he just does not appeal to the moderates. My fear is that Bernie's campaign damages the chances of the democrats in 2020.
I said much the same earlier, speaking as someone even older. The physical stamina part bothers me, although, as I said, if you let me come to work at 11:00 AM every day, I could probably make it.
Oddly, the mental part doesn't really bother me that much. These guys (and women) are so much in the public eye, you can evaluate whether or not they have the intellect and most, I say "most" have the intellect. If you're smart enough to surround yourself with smart people - and listen to them, as Trump doesn't - then you're going to be all right. The ones which worry/worried me about the intellect part are the actors, because they can become adept at covering mental deficiencies. I'm meaning Reagan - my wife and I discussed his obvious Alzheimer's very frequently during the latter years of his presidency. Then, there's Trump, another actor who knows exactly how he looks from every camera angle. I will say that, if a super-senior becomes a real possibility, the next in line becomes very, very important...
I like Democrat Amy Klobuchar. Level headed and pragmatic. Would appeal to the center. My mind remains open, however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Klobuchar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Klobuchar
There is literally no one younger that is in the presidential candidacy range that is simpatico with Bernie Sanders. He's got more support from people my age who are not even eligible to run for president yet. The boomer and gen x age ranges are ruined for anything short of slightly right of center liberalism and the candidates in those age groups show it.
Ideally we could just load up all of those cohorts and launch into the sun so we can get on with not ruining the planet but alas.
I've said it before and I'll repeat. I do not think the voting evidence shows that the American electorate is far enough left to elect Bernie or anyone Bernie-like. Hopes that someone, or Bernie, can come along and and sweep up 50% +1 of the electoral college are pie in the sky. That is barring a Great Depression or some cataclysm which would forced the electorate leftwards. Barring that, the electoral results of the last 50 years or so say that it's not happening...
I like her, but I think she aims too low to get enough traction in the primaries. She opposes Medicare for all, for instance. And while she has an alternative public buy-in plan that she is able to explain if someone asks, I think that kind of milquetoast policy agenda will just get lost in the noise.
And we disagree. When the only other option is Trump, specifically. There was evidence of that via polling during the 2016 primaries.
And, I might add, no evidence whatsoever to the contrary, other than some people’s opinions.
Some seem to be willing to totally disregard the new voters entering the arena, or minorities.
Put it this way: I don’t see how anyone who voted for Hillary would NOT have voted for Bernie against Trump, at least not in numbers anywhere near what some Bernie voters did to Hillary.
He would have won all the states she did, and at least two of the three critical ones she didn’t.
I don’t think he’ll win the nomination, again because I don’t think the DNC will allow it regardless of what primary voters want. They’ve already stated they have every right to select their own candidate regardless of who primary voters choose, and the courts agreed. I still say, unless she flounders badly, it’s Harris’s nomination to lose.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Actual contenders:
1) Elizabeth Warren - IMO she has the best policy ideas and already has draft legislation to get them done. Biggest question is how she can handle competition. I want her on the ticket in either role.
2) Bernie Sanders - big name, built-in support. My criticism is that he tends to offer big ideas without any plan or details. But he and Warren both identify money in politics as the root problem of our generation, which puts them above everyone else.
3) Amy Klobuchar - smart and likeable woman, but probably too moderate to survive the primary. Good strategic VP choice for Sanders though.
4) Kamala Harris - endearing personality, but questionable ideas, and she also comes across as a bit of an opportunist. She'll have to convince me of something in the debates.
10) Cory Booker - still comes across as an opportunist. Don't like him, don't want him anywhere on the ticket.
The others who will eventually drop out:
Kirsten Gillibrand
Julian Castro
Tulsi Gabbard
John Delaney
Pete Buttigieg
Marianne Williamson
1) Elizabeth Warren - IMO she has the best policy ideas and already has draft legislation to get them done. Biggest question is how she can handle competition. I want her on the ticket in either role.
2) Bernie Sanders - big name, built-in support. My criticism is that he tends to offer big ideas without any plan or details. But he and Warren both identify money in politics as the root problem of our generation, which puts them above everyone else.
3) Amy Klobuchar - smart and likeable woman, but probably too moderate to survive the primary. Good strategic VP choice for Sanders though.
4) Kamala Harris - endearing personality, but questionable ideas, and she also comes across as a bit of an opportunist. She'll have to convince me of something in the debates.
10) Cory Booker - still comes across as an opportunist. Don't like him, don't want him anywhere on the ticket.
The others who will eventually drop out:
Kirsten Gillibrand
Julian Castro
Tulsi Gabbard
John Delaney
Pete Buttigieg
Marianne Williamson
that's not evidence, that is hope. part of bernie's popularity is that he was the backup qb. he was never really subjected to any sort of negative campaigning.
It is evidence. We disagree. Ironclad? No. But evidence nonetheless.
There was NONE indicating he’d lose to Trump; only opinions from people like you with nothing to support it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
well, a large majority of the polls in the run up to the 2016 election showed hillary winning. i guess that was evidence of something.
you have to go so far in assumptions to come up with a counterfactual about bernie winning a general election that it is nothing more than an intellectual exercise, and not even an impressive one at that. if he couldn't beat the "worst, most god-awful candidate in history" when he was the only real alternative (and he didn't even come close) there is no reason to believe he could have done well in the general election where he would have been in the spotlight and not the righteous progressive outsider riding in on his white horse to save the day.
i remember a lot of the puma folks whining in 2008 that hillary is the only one (pretty sure they had a few polls as evidence) who could win a general election.
Last edited:
- Status
Latest threads
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
I'm Declaring the Emporer has no clothes (NCAA rules implosion)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 24
-
Home-and-Home Series Wraps Up as Alabama Welcomes UAB on Tuesday
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 1
-
-
A huge win today at my doctor's office...- Started by uafan4life
- Replies: 4