• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who should Democrats run in 2020?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HamburgerBoy said:
Doesn't really matter. If the economy tanks hard, especially if later into Trump's term, and he fails to convincingly blame it on Obama, he's dead even against a mediocre, old, white candidate. If he sells out his base to the ebil globalists, he loses the razor thin margins he had in the critical swing states and loses the electoral. If the economy continues on its current path and he takes credit for it, all the while continuing to give free jobs to the Rust Belt, a second term will be a lock. As said above, the Presidency alone isn't nearly enough to swing things back into Democratic hands anyways, there are other things to worry about.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it. The ways politics work in this country it's less about the merits of the candidates themselves and more a referendum on the current administration. Economy good, stay the course. Things fucked up, change change change! Things were semi-neutral this year, so it came down to which candidate was hated slightly less than the other candidate. In four years the election will be 100% about the Trump presidency. If he does well, jobs grow, economy is strong, no major wars and gas is cheap he wins no matter who runs against him. If the economy tanks, things are messy with China and in the middle east and gas is $5 a gallon then the dems could run an actual donkey (who would be more appealing than Hilary anyway) and they'd win easily.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
That's pretty much it. The ways politics work in this country it's less about the merits of the candidates themselves and more a referendum on the current administration. Economy good, stay the course. Things fucked up, change change change! Things were semi-neutral this year, so it came down to which candidate was hated slightly less than the other candidate. In four years the election will be 100% about the Trump presidency. If he does well, jobs grow, economy is strong, no major wars and gas is cheap he wins no matter who runs against him. If the economy tanks, things are messy with China and in the middle east and gas is $5 a gallon then the dems could run an actual donkey (who would be more appealing than Hilary anyway) and they'd win easily.
Click to expand...
Haha, characterizing 2016 as semi-neutral. What a fucking joke.
 
HamburgerBoy said:
Doesn't really matter. If the economy tanks hard, especially if later into Trump's term, and he fails to convincingly blame it on Obama, he's dead even against a mediocre, old, white candidate. If he sells out his base to the ebil globalists, he loses the razor thin margins he had in the critical swing states and loses the electoral. If the economy continues on its current path and he takes credit for it, all the while continuing to give free jobs to the Rust Belt, a second term will be a lock. As said above, the Presidency alone isn't nearly enough to swing things back into Democratic hands anyways, there are other things to worry about.
Click to expand...
If the economy tanks hard and it starts looking like the Democrats are going to win big they should all call a press conference the week before the election to tell everyone they are dropping out of the race because fuck you. We bailed you out last time and caught nothing but shit. We got painted as both sides the same. Fuck you America. Suck GOP shit for a few decades.
 
According to betting markets.

  1. Michelle Obama - 8/1
  2. Tim Kaine 11/1
  3. Elizabeth Warren 11/1
  4. Julian Castro 12/1
  5. Cory Booker 16/1
  6. Amy Klobuchar 16/1
  7. Joe Biden 18/1
  8. Kamala Harris 20/1
  9. Michael Bloomberg 22/1
On a sidenote, I googled Kamala Harris, LA Times has scrolldown feature to go right to the next news story, so in the images section partway through the results, it's showing former white houhse staffer - Alejandra Campoverdi is she like the hottest person in Washington or what?

AC+headshot.jpg
 
dank69 said:
Haha, characterizing 2016 as semi-neutral. What a fucking joke.
Click to expand...

2016 was the very definition of semi-neutral on this planet. I have no idea what the fuck world you're living on, but I hope the sky is pretty.

A strong outgoing president can sweep a nobody into office like Reagan and Bush 1. A weak presidency can torpedo the new nominee, like Bush2 and McCain. The Obama years were too bleh to have much impact on the race. Hilary couldn't campaign on his success and he wasn't bad enough to bury her. The economy was okay, jobs were a problem, gas was cheap, weak on immigration, yada, yada, yada. Obama was not strong enough to stand there next to Hilary and make it matter, but not bad enough to give her no chance. She had to address the shortcomings of his presidency, jobs in the rust belt, immigration, plight of inner city blacks, etc, and she didn't. The Obama years meant jack shit in 2016, it was all came down who sucks worse, Hilary or Donnie. The people ignored Obama's influence completely and pretty much split on how much they hated the two candidates.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
2016 was the very definition of semi-neutral on this planet. I have no idea what the fuck world you're living on, but I hope the sky is pretty.

A strong outgoing president can sweep a nobody into office like Reagan and Bush 1. A weak presidency can torpedo the new nominee, like Bush2 and McCain. The Obama years were too bleh to have much impact on the race. Hilary couldn't campaign on his success and he wasn't bad enough to bury her. The economy was okay, jobs were a problem, gas was cheap, weak on immigration, yada, yada, yada. Obama was not strong enough to stand there next to Hilary and make it matter, but not bad enough to give her no chance. She had to address the shortcomings of his presidency, jobs in the rust belt, immigration, plight of inner city blacks, etc, and she didn't. The Obama years meant jack shit in 2016, it was all came down who sucks worse, Hilary or Donnie. The people ignored Obama's influence completely and pretty much split on how much they hated the two candidates.
Click to expand...
By all means, tell us what metrics you are using to conclude that 2016 was semi-neutral.
 
momeNt said:
According to betting markets.

  1. Michelle Obama - 8/1
  2. Tim Kaine 11/1
  3. Elizabeth Warren 11/1
  4. Julian Castro 12/1
  5. Cory Booker 16/1
  6. Amy Klobuchar 16/1
  7. Joe Biden 18/1
  8. Kamala Harris 20/1
  9. Michael Bloomberg 22/1
On a sidenote, I googled Kamala Harris, LA Times has scrolldown feature to go right to the next news story, so in the images section partway through the results, it's showing former white houhse staffer - Alejandra Campoverdi is she like the hottest person in Washington or what?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bloomberg is 74 years old.

I bet that Cory Booker is gay.

I don't think Michelle Obama would ever run. She doesn't like politics.
 
Booker is a senator in my state. I saw him speak in 2007 at my University's commencement. The guy is a fierce orator with a great story. He would inspire a lot of people with his ability to speak. I just don't like his ties to Wall Street.
 
dank69 said:
If the economy tanks hard and it starts looking like the Democrats are going to win big they should all call a press conference the week before the election to tell everyone they are dropping out of the race because fuck you. We bailed you out last time and caught nothing but shit. We got painted as both sides the same. Fuck you America. Suck GOP shit for a few decades.
Click to expand...
THIS! Bill Clinton gave us peace and propersity after George HW Bush fumbled around for 4 years. Voters gave us moron George W. Bush who proceeded to give us two unfunded wars and a shit economy. Because there was "no difference" between W. and Gore! The media actually ridiculed the Social Security lockbox and W. was the one everyone wanted to have a beer with. Great, enjoy the massive tax cuts for the wealthy and massive deficits. Obama came in to fix Bush's mess and the last GDP report said the economy is growing at 3.5%. Trump continues the anti-intellectualism, anti-science, anti-good governence slide that the Republicans have been accelerating towards for the last 15 years. Democrats should just say screw this. You want tax cuts for everyone and massive debt on your children. Fine. Continue to vote these morons in.
 
ivwshane said:
They should nominate someone who meets all of the rights views of a left wing boogeyman:

A rich (think billionaire)
Elitist (like someone from a prestigious school and whose house is lined in gold)
Clueless about foreign policy
Someone who hates America (like someone who hates America so much that they marry a foreigner, hires foreigners, and makes their products overseas)
Supports reckless spending and ballooning budgets
Supports crony capitalism
Someone who is bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs (as evident by who they plan to appoint to cabinet positions)
Pays little to no taxes (ie a net taker)
And lastly someone who is so corrupt that they use charities for personal gain


According to the right, that's the ideal leftist candidate that the left would have no problems with.
Click to expand...

This was Australia's right-wing PM, Tony Abbott.
 
dank69 said:
attacked for voting for all the things that went wrong, the same way you blame Hillary for "voting for the Iraq War."
Click to expand...

Then maybe she shouldn't have doubled down in Libya, nor attempt to triple down in Syria!
Hillary Clinton was regime change incarnate. She made Neocons blush with envy.

"Iraq vote was her mistake" would be believable if it wasn't the constant pattern. You can stop lying for her, she'll never be President.
 
Last edited:
Pens1566 said:
And his likely opponent would be as well.



So what?



Probably so.
Click to expand...

Bloomberg would be 78 in 2020. And presumably he'd have to stay fit enough for two terms.

I mean, McCain is looking pretty healthy now, and the average life expectancy has been increasing lately. But still you run into cognitive declines as you get that old.

Booker being gay...just not something I or most people would want in a president.
 
[QUOTE="desura, post: 38645674, member: 325307]

Booker being gay...just not something I or most people would want in a president.[/QUOTE]

Booker is not known to be gay. Just rumored. But interesting statement. Sexual orientation is now a qualifying attribute for office.

Fascinating.

Some people in this country are ass backwards that is for sure. Nothing new.
 
desura said:
Bloomberg would be 78 in 2020. And presumably he'd have to stay fit enough for two terms.

I mean, McCain is looking pretty healthy now, and the average life expectancy has been increasing lately. But still you run into cognitive declines as you get that old.

Booker being gay...just not something I or most people would want in a president.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
Jaskalas said:
Then maybe she shouldn't have doubled down in Libya, nor attempt to tipple down in Syria!
Hillary Clinton was regime change incarnate. She made Neocons blush with envy.

"Iraq vote was her mistake" would be believable if it wasn't the constant pattern. You can stop lying for her, she'll never be President.
Click to expand...

Doubled down? Triple down? Lol. I think Clinton simply saw reality which is why she supported sanctions against Iran that lead to the nuclear agreement. Its why she cautioned Obama about Egypt, it's why she suggested Obama take a much harder line on Syria before it eventually got worse. Her biggest mistake was probably with Libya and ousting Gaddafi without a plan to fill the power vacuum.

But hey don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.
 
chowderhead said:
THIS! Bill Clinton gave us peace and propersity after George HW Bush fumbled around for 4 years. Voters gave us moron George W. Bush who proceeded to give us two unfunded wars and a shit economy. Because there was "no difference" between W. and Gore! The media actually ridiculed the Social Security lockbox and W. was the one everyone wanted to have a beer with. Great, enjoy the massive tax cuts for the wealthy and massive deficits. Obama came in to fix Bush's mess and the last GDP report said the economy is growing at 3.5%. Trump continues the anti-intellectualism, anti-science, anti-good governence slide that the Republicans have been accelerating towards for the last 15 years. Democrats should just say screw this. You want tax cuts for everyone and massive debt on your children. Fine. Continue to vote these morons in.
Click to expand...

What about the massive debt Obama has racked up nearing 20 Trillion dollars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top