Again, read the articles I linked to. Go ahead. Yes, I know its not Trump or right-wing propaganda but just for once, try it out.
Clinton 2020
- Thread starter my_2cents
- Start date
Again, read the articles I linked to. Go ahead. Yes, I know its not Trump or right-wing propaganda but just for once, try it out.
I think Hillary would beat trump this time if she ran. I have no facts to support this, it’s just a hunch.
Putin isn’t afraid of any of the front running dems. Imo, if there’s a candidate that would be able to unite Americans, that person might ultimately be able to give putin the most headaches. I think tulsi might be able to do that, maybe Bloomberg.
Oh, no doubt.
True. Even Bush did the same.
Hopefully you are right and he has burned through any goodwill. The next President needs to stand up to him from the get go.
Bloomberg is the most sane of the group for sure, but zero chance he could unite with his insane position on 2A and general nanny state behavior.
I do not need to read an article to tell me about human tendencies. I agree, Socialism sounds like a great idea. Unfortunately the theory doesn't take into account the most important part, humans. I'm not going to work my ass off the way I did for thirty plus years to get rewarded the same as some guy sitting on his ass. All throughout my professional career I refused to work for a salary or an hourly rate because I knew I could outwork and outperform my peers. I didn't want to be held back, instead I wanted to be compensated according to my production.
History has proven the theory of socialism does not work over and over. Instead of reading articles that support socialism, read history.
Perhaps. I think any of the Democrats could beat Trump at this point and I'd probably include Clinton. Trump is in trouble regardless. However, I don't think she is the best choice and I don't think the Democrats should nominate her again. It is time for the Party to move on.
Gabbard would be a puppet to Putin just like Trump. The Russian government would love to see Gabbard get the nomination.
Bloomberg I guess would stand up to Putin. And maybe you are right about him uniting Americans, but I know progressive Democrats would balk at Bloomberg being the nominee. I'm actually wondering if Clinton is hoping Bloomberg is successful so she can move in and be the alternative to him.
lmao!!
You literally are making the point one of the articles I linked to made. Click on the first link and read it. I think it will literally shock you.
Not only that, but the nordic countries have outsourced their defense to the US military. Who do we get to outsource our defense to in order to free up money to pay for all the free sh**?
1. yes
2. why
I think a thing that conservatives don't understand is that the hard left are the ones that people agree with and moderates are the ones people don't like
Venezuela is less socialist than any of the Nordic countries.
Yeah what would happen if we cut defense spending to 1% of GDP? I hope you like speaking Chinese.
Sigh... that's what I am talking about. The big money types are going to have to bend the curve toward a moderate or Pence will get reelected.
He could be the one that the money backs - his strategy orf entering late and therefore ramping toward Super Tuesday could work.
I just can't get very excited about him. If it were purely about who would govern well I would be backing Klobuchar.
Not as confident that this field will be able to win. This is an epic moment, and the right candidate could not only take the WH but also bring the Senate over the line, building a stronger majority in the House at the same time.
Last edited:
I think you are overstating your case. The hard left has many people who identify as Democrats that agree with them (not that that necessarily transcribes to how many of them register or vote), but on the Republican side of the equation, which is about half the population, the hard left has almost no followers. I grudgingly admit the "socialist" side of the argument is gaining steam after 50-70 years of public school indoctrination, but it isn't there yet. I think that was the fatal flaw in Obama's approach (as well as the rest of the Democrats). He (they) thought his election proved they could finally come out of the closet and publicly declare their true intentions to have the government become the nanny state they so desire. I agree momentum is on their side. It just isn't quite the behemouth you want to make it out to be. Not yet, anyway.
Impeachment is happening to keep DJT tied up in knots and marginalized. That and he is corrupt.
Ponca Dan, all you have to do is look to the polling to know that this is false. Most people aren't ideological and like things such as their medicare, social security, their roads, and want to send their kids to college.
Swing voters including fed-up Republicans. This is a very rare oppty to get a sweeping mandate. A candidate that can tick enough of the social progressive boxes and not scare the bejesus out of people on economic policy would deliver the largest victory to Democrats since 1936.
The total population of Trump voters who would switch to Klobuchar is like 2000 people.
The total voting age population voted for no one in 2016 ~124,000,000 people.
I agree. However, I don't think we do that with some "safe" moderate/establishment type. That was the mistake of 2016 and we saw what happened.
Pilt, you know as well as I do that polls are as unreliable as believing Hillary's2Cents is a Bernie supporter. Pollsters routinely skew questions to get the results they want. I do not believe most people are for universal government mandated/enforced healthcare, free college, guaranteed jobs, or most of the Green New Deal once they are informed of the price they will have to pay, both in monetary terms and in the liberty they will have to relinquish.
I remember when my daughter was senior in high school and wanted to go to a club in Tulsa with her friends, how furious she was when she was told she couldn't go. "I can't wait to go to college so I can go anywhere I want to go!" was how she put it. And I explained to her she was absolutely correct, once she was off to college she could go anywhere and do anything and we couldn't stop her, but she wasn't there yet. She was "this close" (thumb and fingers only an inch apart), but not there yet. That's kind of where the hard left is today, "this close" but not there yet.
means tested nibbling around the edges -2020
catch the fever!
You mean once they are scared by your right-wing fear tactics, correct?
The American people make it clear over and over again in polls they support these policies. I know you don't want to accept the polls but nevertheless, that is what they show.
This statement confuses me.
You think that hard left peeps are more mainstream likable?
Ponca Dan compare the popularity of those programs to that the programs of the moderate Democrats.
Yes. The ID politics stuff that people hate comes from moderate Democrats. The programs that materially benefit Americans economically come form the left wing Democrats. Of course it goes without saying that ideological voters don't like either, but most voters aren't ideological.
FDR was elected four times by Americans. They literally amended the constitution because he kept getting re-elected.
I would say they inspire more energy/passion which is great in a primary run. That energy isn't necessary at this point to win in a general and in fact gives the opponent something to build fear and loathing around.
That and I am not a big fan of the economic policies of Warren/Sanders.
If the choice is Trump or Warren/Sanders then I will vote for the Dem. Quite confident they would be just fine if elected as the system isn't built for radical change.
1932 sets up as a decent analog. Though Hoover was more openly opposed by his own party....
I disagree David. We need that energy/passion for the general election.
Many Democrats set on their hands and didn't go out and vote for Clinton in 2016. The energy and passion wasn't there. It would have been there though for Sanders. It was also there for Obama in 2008 and 2016.
The way the Democrats win is with energy and passion. This has always been the case that I can remember. A choice like Klobuchar, Bloomberg, or even Clinton isn't going to inspire such energy and passion. They could still win but that is only because of how unpopular Trump is.
OhI don’t deny
Oh, Pilt, I'm not disputing that Medicare, Social Security, etc. are popular (although they are in the process of economically destroying our country). And I'm sure all the free stuff offered in the Green New Deal has great appeal for many people. It will probably will win the day eventually, upon which the American people will learn the hard way that the vision is significantly flawed, like the people of the USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela have discovered. Like the people in Germany and France, Italy and Greece are learning government's don't really care a whit about anything but having power. I'm telling you I agree with you that you will finally get the country you desire. I just don't think the time is here yet. And I hope I have returned to ashes and dust before it happens.
Let me direct your attention to the third paragraph in which popular government programs are being mentioned.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/...ercent-in-first-two-months-of-fiscal-year-cbo
Last edited:
Wish I had time to better formulate my thoughts here.
I get your point in regards to getting the vote out, but I think a strong Dem can rally the base while also highlighting issues that matter to the non-ideological voter without asking voters to accept a dramatic shift in their perception of America.
We all can think of people who resent the tone and tenor more than the message.
Not doing a great job expressing myself, will try and get some focus time later and see if I can better represent.
Similar threads
