Who should Democrats run in 2020?

[chowderhead]

Absolutely. Obama should be faulted for running deficits but the Republicans refused any compromise. Obama inherited a massive deficit from W and his massive tax cuts and unfund wars and a crap economy. Republicans walked away from a 10 to 1 spending cuts to tax hikes deficit reduction compromise. No sacrifice was acceptable to Republicans when fighting unfunded wars or giving back some tax cuts for the wealthy. We will just have huge deficits under Trump again and large tax cuts for everyone especially the very wealthy.

 

[momeNt]

It won't be Kaine/Warren/Biden/Sanders. Age. I won't rule out Michelle Obama. Bloomberg would be amusing considering how much he and Trump hate each other. To the list above, I'd sub in Newsom from CA, and Gillibrand from NY. Maybe a Sherrod Brown as well.

It's too bad that they don't have a futures market on betting sites where you can sell your bet at the line you bought it at.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I won't be surprised if we get Clinton v. Trump again in 2020. The DNC wants Clinton to become President and maybe the third time will be the charm.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

How odd it is that the party that is actually supposed to represent the interests and concerns of the working class lost to a guy who has clearly shown he represents the interests and desires of the class of wealthy billionaires he got born and raised in.

Are you talking about the same Democrat Party that passed NAFTA, that backed the TPP, and that supports mass immigration? The one whose candidate (Hillary Clinton - D, Goldman Sachs) gives secret speeches to Wall Street bankers?

That the re-distributive war against the middle class and the poor they have been waging is being ignored by those middle class folks who put Trump in office simply amazes me not only in the sense that it seems these folks just don't care but would rather believe in all of the lies, half truths and broken promises he made to them.

Thing is, the Democrats aren't much different. It was Trump that catered to the concerns of the lower classes in his campaigning and that's why he ended up winning the election. In contrast, Hillary came off as an establishment insider who supported the current economic status quo (and NAFTA and the TPP and mass immigration).

It seems to me all the Dems need to do is to keep hammering away at this point and to keep exposing Trump for what he is and who he truly represents. IMO, the Dem candidate that eventually rises to the top of the heap will have done the best job at exposing Trump's blatant lies and what should be done to make him pay for it.

But will the Dems' Wall Street banker overlords allow something like that?

Maybe it would be better if the Democrats just disbanded and a new progressive party were formed, especially if the leadership could come to realize that mass immigration isn't in lower class Americans best interest.

 

[desura]

Just because Trump is rich doesn't mean that he cares only about billionaires. His language and mannerisms are very working class. There was an article not long ago about how the Trump win is motivated by hatred of professionals, who sit just slightly higher than the working class. Clinton comes off as the uber professional. Trump is like a working class guy who happens to have fuck you money.

 

[ivwshane]

Just because Trump is rich doesn't mean that he cares only about billionaires. His language and mannerisms are very working class. There was an article not long ago about how the Trump win is motivated by hatred of professionals, who sit just slightly higher than the working class. Clinton comes off as the uber professional. Trump is like a working class guy who happens to have fuck you money.

Lol! Actions speak louder than words and his actions have shown time and time again he's screwed over the little guy time and time again.

 

[desura]

Lol! Actions speak louder than words and his actions have shown time and time again he's screwed over the little guy time and time again.

I don't disagree. But I'm saying, this is a big driving reason why so many working class people voted for this rich guy named Trump. Because culturally, he connected to them and could not connect with Hillary. Hillary I don't recall ever going to state fairs or eating junk food or yamming it up with country people. She only really gave shoutouts to urban populism, relying heavily on tv celebrities.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't disagree. But I'm saying, this is a big driving reason why so many working class people voted for this rich guy named Trump. Because culturally, he connected to them and could not connect with Hillary. Hillary I don't recall ever going to state fairs or eating junk food or yamming it up with country people. She only really gave shoutouts to urban populism, relying heavily on tv celebrities.

I find it hard to believe that it was trumps economic message that brought people out, considering most of his supporters were of the $70k+ income crowd.

 

[desura]

I find it hard to believe that it was trumps economic message that brought people out, considering most of his supporters were of the $70k+ income crowd.

As I said again, all people who make 70k+ don't think alike. You act like everyone who makes a certain amount of money becomes a certain way culturally.

 

[ivwshane]

As I said again, all people who make 70k+ don't think alike. You act like everyone who makes a certain amount of money becomes a certain way culturally.

I didn't say they did. Trump ran on an economic message did he not? His message was based on fear and scapegoating was it not?

I guess by "connecting with them culturally" you weren't speaking of economics but rather identity politics, ie the white race and to that I agree Hillary, nor anyone for that matter could compete or was willing to compete with that message.

 

[Indus]

I've been wanting Kirsten Gillibrand to get herself a more prominent image and make a run for a few years now.

For reference she just turned 50 this month.

Should never happen. She is a good senator.. very good senator, better than Hillary ever was but if you couldn't win with Hillary, why would you want to try with Hillary lite with connections to wall street?

We need someone who's not tainted by Washington since one thing is very clear.

Carter, Reagan, Bill Clinton, GWB, Obama.. what do they all have in common? They weren't part of the washington establishment at the time.