2020 Presidential Election thread

THe DNC want Biden so bad.  They know that he is the gateway to a female Prez.  He is getting elected then bowing out.  

Welp, Gabbard is officially out and endorses....Biden

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1240650484546859008

Sanders has to fold soon. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Welp, Gabbard is officially out and endorses....Biden

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1240650484546859008

 

Sanders has to fold soon. 

The dems are completely out of touch with the "middle" of the road people politically. Tulsi was the ONE candidate they had that absolutely would have beat Trump, and beat Trump easily. And that has nothing to do with her looks.

She is more "middle" than any other candidate except maybe Biden, but he is not mentally all there.

She is a veteran.

She is not for continuing wars, starting new wars, etc.

She would have been WAY more "Presidential" than Sanders, Biden, and definitely Trump is/would be.

Sanders would have got trounced by Trump, Biden would have lost convincingly before this current crisis (now more up in the air), Tulsi would have beat Trump bad.

The DNC is just out of touch with reality.

posted by jmog

The dems are completely out of touch with the "middle" of the road people politically. Tulsi was the ONE candidate they had that absolutely would have beat Trump, and beat Trump easily. And that has nothing to do with her looks.

 

She is more "middle" than any other candidate except maybe Biden, but he is not mentally all there.

She is a veteran.

She is not for continuing wars, starting new wars, etc.

She would have been WAY more "Presidential" than Sanders, Biden, and definitely Trump is/would be.

 

Sanders would have got trounced by Trump, Biden would have lost convincingly before this current crisis (now more up in the air), Tulsi would have beat Trump bad.

 

The DNC is just out of touch with reality.

It's funny you mention this, because I have heard a lot of Democrats saying that being a centrist Democrat is why Clinton lost.

posted by O-Trap

It's funny you mention this, because I have heard a lot of Democrats saying that being a centrist Democrat is why Clinton lost.

 

And we all thought it was because she was a lying, criminal bitch.

posted by O-Trap

It's funny you mention this, because I have heard a lot of Democrats saying that being a centrist Democrat is why Clinton lost.

 

Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate with a troubled past.

posted by jmog

The dems are completely out of touch with the "middle" of the road people politically. Tulsi was the ONE candidate they had that absolutely would have beat Trump, and beat Trump easily. And that has nothing to do with her looks.

 

She is more "middle" than any other candidate except maybe Biden, but he is not mentally all there.

She is a veteran.

She is not for continuing wars, starting new wars, etc.

She would have been WAY more "Presidential" than Sanders, Biden, and definitely Trump is/would be.

 

Sanders would have got trounced by Trump, Biden would have lost convincingly before this current crisis (now more up in the air), Tulsi would have beat Trump bad.

 

The DNC is just out of touch with reality.

Quite the strong statement considering that her poll numbers never once remotely suggested she had even one iota of a chance at doing anything more than getting her name out there on a national scale. I like Tulsi, but she was never anything more than around the 8th-9th most popular candidate, at least until those in the 3rd through 7th spots dropped out. To me, it's about the same argument as the uber-progs bitching about how it was going to be a collection of older white people battling for the nomination. Yeah, because no one ever created any buzz for Booker or Harris and they dropped out because they were complete non-entities. Tulsi was the same, but for centrists instead of progs.

Or, using another candidate you liked, call it the Herman Cain Effect. You might like him and his ideas might speak to you, but to the vast majority of people in the same party, there simply was no resonance. No starting the race as a contender and no great moment that wakes up people to your bid and at least gives you a momentary bump.

posted by jmog

The dems are completely out of touch with the "middle" of the road people politically. Tulsi was the ONE candidate they had that absolutely would have beat Trump, and beat Trump easily. And that has nothing to do with her looks.

 

She is more "middle" than any other candidate except maybe Biden, but he is not mentally all there.

She is a veteran.

She is not for continuing wars, starting new wars, etc.

She would have been WAY more "Presidential" than Sanders, Biden, and definitely Trump is/would be.

 

Sanders would have got trounced by Trump, Biden would have lost convincingly before this current crisis (now more up in the air), Tulsi would have beat Trump bad.

 

The DNC is just out of touch with reality.

Yeah, I'm not sure about all that. Sure she was a vet and some of her views were middle of the road. However, her past statements about same sex couples were troubling. Also, her record and statements about Syria were awful and so wrong. 

She also had zero moderate support of the electorate either. Her only fans were on the conservative side of the aisle. There is a reason she was on Fox News a lot...

posted by O-Trap

It's funny you mention this, because I have heard a lot of Democrats saying that being a centrist Democrat is why Clinton lost.

 

posted by QuakerOats

And we all thought it was because she was a lying, criminal bitch.

posted by jmog

Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate with a troubled past.

Yup. The fact that Biden is cleaning up and winning more Sanders 2016 voters shows that. 
 

posted by Heretic

Quite the strong statement considering that her poll numbers never once remotely suggested she had even one iota of a chance at doing anything more than getting her name out there on a national scale. I like Tulsi, but she was never anything more than around the 8th-9th most popular candidate, at least until those in the 3rd through 7th spots dropped out. To me, it's about the same argument as the uber-progs bitching about how it was going to be a collection of older white people battling for the nomination. Yeah, because no one ever created any buzz for Booker or Harris and they dropped out because they were complete non-entities. Tulsi was the same, but for centrists instead of progs.

Or, using another candidate you liked, call it the Herman Cain Effect. You might like him and his ideas might speak to you, but to the vast majority of people in the same party, there simply was no resonance. No starting the race as a contender and no great moment that wakes up people to your bid and at least gives you a momentary bump.

The poll numbers were amongst democrats as she was still in the primary. I was talking about her directly against Trump.

We all know you have to be way more "left" to win the DNC primary now, which is why she had zero chance at all.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Yeah, I'm not sure about all that. Sure she was a vet and some of her views were middle of the road. However, her past statements about same sex couples were troubling. Also, her record and statements about Syria were awful and so wrong. 

She also had zero moderate support of the electorate either. Her only fans were on the conservative side of the aisle. There is a reason she was on Fox News a lot...

The fact that she was on Fox News a lot actually proves my point. She would not only have won over the middle but would have EASILY got the "Never Trump" republican votes as well. If only the DNC and democrats would have paid any attention to her at all.

Anyone that doesn't believe she is a way better general election candidate than Biden (due to his growing dementia) and Sanders (due to being a political loon) really is out of touch. 

If you put Tulsi on stage versus Trump, he would look like an idiot.  You put Biden up there and Trump will look like George Washington.

posted by jmog

The fact that she was on Fox News a lot actually proves my point. She would not only have won over the middle but would have EASILY got the "Never Trump" republican votes as well. If only the DNC and democrats would have paid any attention to her at all.

 

Anyone that doesn't believe she is a way better general election candidate than Biden (due to his growing dementia) and Sanders (due to being a political loon) really is out of touch. 

No, I think if she got more spotlight her views on same sex marriage and her foreign policy views would get picked apart. Also, just because someone is on Fox News a lot does not mean they are down the middle.  If a Republican went on MSNBC all the time, I doubt you would say they were middle. 

Her statements and record on Syria are pretty fucking bad. I doubt she would get the traditional never Trump Republicans either as her veiws were even too far for them. As someone else said, she was more like the Herman Cain of the candidates. 

posted by Spock

If you put Tulsi on stage versus Trump, he would look like an idiot.  You put Biden up there and Trump will look like George Washington.

posted by Spock

If you put Tulsi on stage versus Trump, he would look like an idiot.  You put Biden up there and Trump will look like George Washington.

Doesn't matter at this point.  Coronavirus is going to choose our next POTUS.

I just want to see who Biden picks as his running mate so I know who will be President in 2021.

posted by gut

Doesn't matter at this point.  Coronavirus is going to choose our next POTUS.

I just want to see who Biden picks as his running mate so I know who will be President in 2021.

All Trump has to do is campaign that "you arent voting for a Vice President"  Put it out there that Joe want make it a whole term and scare people into thinking his VP is gonna be in charge.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

No, I think if she got more spotlight her views on same sex marriage and her foreign policy views would get picked apart. Also, just because someone is on Fox News a lot does not mean they are down the middle.  If a Republican went on MSNBC all the time, I doubt you would say they were middle. 

Her statements and record on Syria are pretty fucking bad. I doubt she would get the traditional never Trump Republicans either as her veiws were even too far for them. As someone else said, she was more like the Herman Cain of the candidates. 

Her non-interventionalism reminded me of Ron Paul, which I liked a lot.

Her statements on Syria were stupid, absolutely stupid, and would have cost her "points" in a general. I believe she would have won them back with the "lets get out of the wars we are in and only worry about protecting the USA" mantra. She is basically a somewhat liberal version of Ron Paul. Paul's biggest problem, is that he was TOO libertarian for the mainstream/general election. 

Unfortunately you can't go "get rid of the Fed and go back to the gold standard" without scaring too many people, even if you are "right".

Even though her glaring mistakes would have been opened up in a general, she was still way more "Presidential" than Trump, she is smarter than Trump, and would have beat him in debates while Sanders and Biden have no shot at that. Biden did 4 years ago, but not with his dimentia setting in.

I am not sure how I missed this in the most recent debate...but Biden went off the rails on the oil industry, wanting to ban all drilling...

I suspect he meant only on Federal lands, but just kept talking.

Trump will jump all over this come general election time.

“Number one, no more subsidies for fossil fuel industry,” Biden said at the debate. “No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one.”

posted by jmog

Her non-interventionalism reminded me of Ron Paul, which I liked a lot.

 

Her statements on Syria were stupid, absolutely stupid, and would have cost her "points" in a general. I believe she would have won them back with the "lets get out of the wars we are in and only worry about protecting the USA" mantra. She is basically a somewhat liberal version of Ron Paul. Paul's biggest problem, is that he was TOO libertarian for the mainstream/general election. 

 

Unfortunately you can't go "get rid of the Fed and go back to the gold standard" without scaring too many people, even if you are "right".

 

Even though her glaring mistakes would have been opened up in a general, she was still way more "Presidential" than Trump, she is smarter than Trump, and would have beat him in debates while Sanders and Biden have no shot at that. Biden did 4 years ago, but not with his dimentia setting in.

Yeah, I think you buying too much into her hype. Her other statements on Russia and China were also pretty bad. She was pretty much open to letting Russia take over eastern Europe and allow China to take over the Pacific. 

posted by jmog

I am not sure how I missed this in the most recent debate...but Biden went off the rails on the oil industry, wanting to ban all drilling...

 

I suspect he meant only on Federal lands, but just kept talking.

 

Trump will jump all over this come general election time.

 

Yeah, let's see how that plays in places like PA. That may come back to bite him. 

Looks like a lot of momentum about to come at Cuomo on running.