Page 1 of 15 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 219

Thread: The US 2020 Presidential Election

  1. #1
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,150

    The US 2020 Presidential Election

    Let the Games Begin!
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,150
    2020 Presidential Candidates

    The Declared and The "Interested"

    Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
    Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)
    Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)
    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
    Former HUD Secretary Julian Castro (D-TX)
    Rep. Johh Delaney (D-MD)
    State Senator Richard Ojeda (D-WV)
    Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE)
    Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)
    Sen Cory Booker (D-NJ)
    Mayor Bill deBlasio (D-NY)
    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-NH)

    Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)
    Former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
    Gov. John Kasich (R-OH)
    Gov. Larry Hogan (R-MD)
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,593
    Hopefully someone runs against Trump, and only one person against Trump. Last thing the GOP needs is another three-ring circus in the primaries. I'd say Kasich or Romney are the best positioned at the moment, though I like Kasich's general election chances better than Romney. I don't expect Trump to lose, but it's definitely worth a shot.

    On the Dem side, I'm looking more towards Harris/Booker with Gillibrand in the third place seat. I think Booker/Harris both have the possibility of picking up elite support and still appealing to most of the Millennial voters who are looking for the cool, new thing, at least enough to offset the people who will be turned off by some of their negatives while in office (liberals on my FB seem to have questions about Harris' prosecutorial practices, and Booker is a typical NJ senator with typical corporate baggage).

    I think Warren has enough steam in NH/Iowa to keep going, but I expect she'll run into disappointing results unless she has an all-star campaign. My feeling is that the money is more comfortable aligning behind someone less left-wing than her.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  4. #4
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,868
    So based on a 60 Minutes interview Howard Schultz of Starbucks fame is seriously thinking of running as an Independent or 3rd Party if you will. Ugh!!! With elections swinging on a few thousand votes in a handful of battleground states for the Electoral votes what is he thinking? He says we can't have more of Trump then turns around and says both parties have their issues. His entry pretty much guarantees that Trump wins. Not only that but he and his base will see it as a direct message from God reaffirming he is the only one who can save America from her moral depravity and being overrun by the Mongol hordes who rape, pillage and rob. Shades of 2000 all over again yet worse.

  5. #5
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,006
    currently on the Dem side, Harris is the front-runner. don't think Booker will get too far; he has too much association as a "corporate Dem".

    Sanders predictably threw his hat in the ring. joy.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  6. #6
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,868
    Probably right about Booker vis a vis the Progressive wing.

    To me I look upon Sanders and Warren as jokes. Neither of them could siphon off three Midwest states to deny Trump. LOL, probably do the opposite.

    Harris is a wait and see project.

    Klobuchar is interesting in that she is more willing to say "what is possible" versus "pie in the sky ideas." However, some on the Left feel that she needs to be eliminated ( a moderate) from the race because the energy is coming from the Left.

    The Left seems incredibly shortsighted when it comes to paying attention to the Electoral College. Getting progressives to turn out in large numbers in New York and California won't change a thing.

  7. #7
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,006
    Probably right about Booker vis a vis the Progressive wing.

    To me I look upon Sanders and Warren as jokes. Neither of them could siphon off three Midwest states to deny Trump. LOL, probably do the opposite.

    Harris is a wait and see project.

    Klobuchar is interesting in that she is more willing to say "what is possible" versus "pie in the sky ideas." However, some on the Left feel that she needs to be eliminated ( a moderate) from the race because the energy is coming from the Left.

    The Left seems incredibly shortsighted when it comes to paying attention to the Electoral College. Getting progressives to turn out in large numbers in New York and California won't change a thing.
    i'm torn about this. in terms of straight up politics, economic liberalism is not the issue, even in conservative states. it's cultural liberalism that is. another reason why Booker isn't popular; he's basically in the position of Schultz, only within the Democratic Party.

    Warren is more realistic and knowledgeable about the issues than Sanders, but she's also got the schoolmarm thing to her-- plus I don't know that she'll be the one that can take on the relentless negativism of a Trump campaign.

    i think the events over the last decade or so have shown that if there's to be any movement in US politics at all, the next President needs to be competent and ruthless in the consolidation of political power (of course, in a constitutional way)-- but not at the executive branch, but in the legislative branch. i like the moderate political positions MORE, but I also fully recognize that neither center-left nor left ideas will have any political traction whatsoever if current Congressional paralysis is not broken.

    that means stuff like breaking the legislative filibuster, introduction of PR/Guam/DC as states, etc.

    these are extreme measures but the alternatives are even worse-- cycles of paralysis like the 17th-century Polish liberum veto, which would follow with even worse consolidation of power under an unconstitutional executive and the complete breakdown of whatever center remains in both political parties.

    i would PREFER a moderate-policy President be the one to do this, but I'm also fully aware that people who are moderate in policy are also overwhelmingly likely to be moderate in political process. and being moderate in that regards would mean a slow but sure death of the Republic at this juncture.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  8. #8
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,868
    My main concern is Ginsberg. She may hold out till 2020 but she cannot hold out till another term past 2020. Should she get replaced by a strong, corporate, anti-environment, anti-abortion conservative then the court will be 6-4. That will haunt us for decades. So the Democrats better make damn sure they know what they are doing because there is a lot more at stake then maybe even some of them realize.

  9. #9
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,579
    Where is Hillary? Haven't heard from her in a long time. She will make a very good President, 2020 onwards. Two excellent Presidents in a row.
    God Bless America!
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  10. #10
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,593
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    i'm torn about this. in terms of straight up politics, economic liberalism is not the issue, even in conservative states. it's cultural liberalism that is. another reason why Booker isn't popular; he's basically in the position of Schultz, only within the Democratic Party.

    Warren is more realistic and knowledgeable about the issues than Sanders, but she's also got the schoolmarm thing to her-- plus I don't know that she'll be the one that can take on the relentless negativism of a Trump campaign.

    i think the events over the last decade or so have shown that if there's to be any movement in US politics at all, the next President needs to be competent and ruthless in the consolidation of political power (of course, in a constitutional way)-- but not at the executive branch, but in the legislative branch. i like the moderate political positions MORE, but I also fully recognize that neither center-left nor left ideas will have any political traction whatsoever if current Congressional paralysis is not broken.

    that means stuff like breaking the legislative filibuster, introduction of PR/Guam/DC as states, etc.

    these are extreme measures but the alternatives are even worse-- cycles of paralysis like the 17th-century Polish liberum veto, which would follow with even worse consolidation of power under an unconstitutional executive and the complete breakdown of whatever center remains in both political parties.

    i would PREFER a moderate-policy President be the one to do this, but I'm also fully aware that people who are moderate in policy are also overwhelmingly likely to be moderate in political process. and being moderate in that regards would mean a slow but sure death of the Republic at this juncture.
    To me it seems like you are way more interested in implementing center-left policy than you are in actually stabilizing the foundations of the republic. So, let's be clear here. You are a center-left market-oriented neoliberal. Your political beliefs are in no way disenfranchised. They have been dominant in US politics for decades, and punch far above their weight because of the current arrangement of US economic and political power. Tearing down institutions is not going to empower your beliefs, and your beliefs will continue to erode in popularity over the coming decades.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,474
    Biden for me; "steady hands" are needed.

  12. #12
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,006
    GVChamp,

    To me it seems like you are way more interested in implementing center-left policy than you are in actually stabilizing the foundations of the republic.
    it's precisely lack of action that is destabilizing the foundations of the Republic. the legislative branch is dangerously weak because of a combination of political polarization and gerrymandering, resulting in a tyranny of the minority. the executive branch has been taking over more and more of the legislative powers in lieu of this.

    if anything, the US public is quite left-leaning in terms of economics, and their political beliefs haven't been well-reflected in US policy at all. consider this-- 80%+ of registered voters support the Green New Deal being floated by AOC et al...including 64% of Republicans.

    only 32% of Republicans support cutting Social Security or Medicare.

    or think of the one GOP legislative triumph, the tax cut. 69% of GOP voters say that this tax cut either hasn't helped them at all or very little.

    Trump essentially won the Presidency by rejecting the GOP consensus of free trade and cutting SS/Medicare, and promising industrial support/cutting immigration.

    i am essentially in the position where i advocate for political reforms even if it comes with policies i don't particularly like, because the alternative is watching the engine build up steam and exploding.

    the center-right has already disappeared; the center-left is in the process of disappearing. if one wants any center at all, then the centrists must start delivering. and delivering can only happen with aggressive political action to destroy the logjams.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  13. #13
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,943
    I like Klobuchar, I think she'd do well.

    I am intrigued with Hickenlooper's announcement today...I've always thought he was good.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  14. #14
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,006
    this article does a pretty good job at encapsulating my thought process.

    ====

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...nd-todays-gop/

    Hickenlooper’s entry reveals how moderates fatally misunderstand today’s GOP

    By Paul Waldman

    Opinion writer
    March 4 at 12:16 PM

    The race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination got another entrant today, which makes 12 major candidates, with more to come. John Hickenlooper, the former governor of Colorado, announced today that he’ll be running, and while in a different year he might have been a strong contender — reasonably successful and well-liked governor, middle-aged white guy — he has a bit of a timing problem.

    It isn’t just that Hickenlooper isn’t nationally known and may be more moderate than what Democratic primary voters are looking for right now. It goes to what sort of president he says he’d be. To hear him talk, it’s as though he parachuted in from a few decades ago and has no idea how politics works in 2019 or what sorts of impediments the next Democratic president is going to face. Let’s look at the way he summed up his candidacy in an interview with ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos this morning:

    I’m running for president because I believe that not only can I beat Donald Trump but that I am the person that can bring people together on the other side and actually get stuff done.

    Hickenlooper talked about the importance of going out and listening to people, about how when he was mayor of Denver and ran for governor he connected with voters all over the state whose concerns weren’t partisan. Which is surely true, but unfortunately it shows that while being out in the “real” America (i.e. not Washington) can help you understand how policy decisions affect people’s lives, it can also obscure the real challenges of federal policymaking the next president will face.

    That's because as much as Washington is its own bizarrely dysfunctional environment, if what you want is to run the federal government, you have to understand how Washington works.

    There can be a danger in learning too well the lessons to be found outside the capital, if you're constantly being told by voters things like, "I don't understand why they can't just put all that partisanship aside and get things done!" That's something people outside Washington say all the time, and while it's a legitimate desire, it betrays a lack of understanding of contemporary politics in America, for a couple of key reasons.

    First, when you say what we need is to put aside the squabbling to “get things done,” you’re assuming that there’s broad agreement on what the “things” are that ought to be done. From time to time that may be the case; for instance, last December, Congress passed a bipartisan criminal-justice reform bill, because it was something both Democrats and Republicans thought was worthwhile.

    But for most of the big issues, there are profound disagreements not just on means, but also on ends. Democrats want to expand reproductive rights; Republicans want to restrict them. Democrats want strong action on climate change; Republicans want to increase fossil fuel use and cut back environmental regulation. Democrats want more people to have government-guaranteed health coverage; Republicans want fewer people to have it.

    Those differences are hard or even impossible to resolve because the two parties have fundamentally incompatible goals. You can't just get in a room, realize that we all want what's best for America, and find a solution.

    The second and more important reason that the two parties can’t just sit down, hash everything out, and get things done is that there’s this thing called the Republican Party. You may have heard of it. But apparently John Hickenlooper hasn’t.

    Let me point to another part of his ABC interview, where Stephanopoulos asked him how he'd deal with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell if he became president. Hickenlooper makes reference to a regional transit initiative he pursued while he was mayor of Denver:

    When I come into office, I would go to Mitch McConnell to his office and I would sit down with him and say, “Now what is the issue again?” and we would talk and I would continue to speak back to him — it sounds silly, right? But this works, this is what I did with the suburban mayors, and they hated the city of Denver. You go to any metropolitan area in the country, the arguments between the big-city mayor and the suburban mayors, they’re almost endless. We’re the one place where this has gotten done, and I think it’ll work in Washington.


    Here’s the problem for a Democratic president: Today’s Republican Party isn’t just committed to a particular set of policy preferences, it’s also committed to a style of politics in which 1) any compromise with Democrats on a controversial issue is an unconscionable betrayal, and 2) literally any tactics, no matter how morally reprehensible, are justified in the pursuit of their goals.

    When Barack Obama was elected (another Democrat who said he wanted to bring people together), McConnell and his colleagues made a decision that they would work to deny Obama any victories, even if it meant doing demonstrable harm to the country. They would filibuster everything, slow confirmation of appointees to a crawl, shut down the government, threaten to default on America's debts, and find any legislative maneuver they could to throw sand in the gears. They were neither shy nor subtle in making clear that this is what they were doing.

    Obama would beg and plead and cajole and reach out and compromise in an effort to get Republicans to engage with him on issues such as health care and climate, to no avail. It all culminated with McConnell’s decision to hold open a Supreme Court seat for almost a year, simply refusing to allow Obama to fill a vacancy. Why? Because he could. If Hickenlooper sincerely thinks he can persuade McConnell to abandon that strategy and join with him in a bipartisan manner to “get things done,” it’s reason to question his mental stability.

    Now maybe Hickenlooper doesn’t actually believe it. Maybe he just realizes it’s something many Americans want to hear. But more likely, he thinks that what worked in local and state politics will inevitably work in Washington. It won’t.


    I should say that one can criticize some of the other Democratic candidates on their ideas for how to get their agendas passed, which I have done. For instance, Bernie Sanders seems to think that he’ll lead a grass-roots movement so powerful that it would force Republicans in Congress to vote for things they despise such as single-payer health care and free college, which is no less ridiculous than thinking that they’ll come around to helping a Democrat pass his agenda with enough friendly sit-downs.

    But if you don’t have a plan for overcoming Republican opposition that takes that opposition as a given — not as something you can make disappear, but as something you must find a way to defeat or circumvent — you don’t have a plan for governing. And that’s something any Democrat who wants to be president ought to have.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  15. #15
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,868
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    the center-right has already disappeared; the center-left is in the process of disappearing. if one wants any center at all, then the centrists must start delivering. and delivering can only happen with aggressive political action to destroy the logjams.
    Yeah, the center-right. There are some left but the cowards are cowering in their shoes behind the closet door hoping to avoid notice by the firebrands who want to torch their asses. That is what they get for not defending their turf early on. Now we are stuck with a far far right which probably demand Scotus read the Constitution as written on one hand while they try to subvert the Constitution on the other to suit themselves. Dangerous stuff in the past.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

  1. astralis

Similar Threads

  1. French Presidential Election
    By kato in forum International Politics
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 02 Jul 17,, 00:17
  2. 2012 Presidential Election - The Ups and Downs
    By TopHatter in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 1237
    Last Post: 24 Nov 13,, 04:28
  3. dead colts of presidential election
    By luffaman in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 28 Jun 08,, 02:17
  4. 2000 US Presidential Election
    By Shek in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 19 May 08,, 04:05
  5. Mexico's Presidential Election's over...
    By ProzacNation in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04 Jul 06,, 11:43

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •