2020 US Democratic Party primaries discussion

[Admiral Beez]

I feel that the Dems are going to mess this up. First they'll have an ugly primary season leaving many dissatisfied and declining to vote at all. Second, they'll pick a candidate that can't beat Trump. I'll wager that Trump wins in 2020 by both the electoral college and the popular vote.

 

[Richard White]

I feel that the Dems are going to mess this up. First they'll have an ugly primary season leaving many dissatisfied and declining to vote at all. Second, they'll pick a candidate that can't beat Trump. I'll wager that Trump wins in 2020 by both the electoral college and the popular vote.

I can believe that. Despite what happened with Hilary the Dems aren't bright.

They think Warren, Biden or Sanders are their saviour when they should be backing Bloomberg.

Warren is too far out there to be taken seriously, Biden has more baggage than a Hilary did and Sanders is the epitome of the old man yells at cloud meme.

Part of the problem is US politics in general. They have to kiss the asses of the religious, the gun toting, the liberals.. etc in order to win.

I've never seen a country so democratic yet so theocratic at the same time.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Bloomberg has no personal charisma. Enough of these old men. What about Mayor Pete?

 

[Towered]

Bloomberg has no personal charisma. Enough of these old men. What about Mayor Pete?

He has a lot of good qualities going for him, but I just can't see a majority of Americans voting for an openly gay man, and Trump will fully exploit that if Pete gains any real traction.

 

[Richard White]

He has a lot of good qualities going for him, but I just can't see a majority of Americans voting for an openly gay man, and Trump will fully exploit that if Pete gains any real traction.

Not only that but Bloomberg is well respected in America, specifically the business world. He is successful and intelligent version of Trump. Trump can try to knock down Bloomberg but he has enough credibility to weather the storm. I can see Trump trying to play up the fake news aspect or how the media is against him but anyone who knows Bloomberg Media knows they are well respected unlike Fox News.

Pete Buttgeig is one of those flash in the pan candidates that won't last very long.

Knowing the US Democratic Election Committee they will find a way to back a candidate they think can beat Trump but cannot. It's not about the name and sometimes you need to sacrifice your ideals to win.

I think an apt comparison is Jagmeet Singh in Canada. The NDP here chose to back Jagmeet because he was popular among NDP supporters and he was a minority individual but when it came to a general election he could not beat Trudeau or Scheer. If they had chose a better candidate like Niki Ashton or Charlie Angus they would have done better.

 

[MetroMan]

I tend to agree that Buttigieg has the momentum to build a movement that even Conservatives can get behind... but for one thing: he’s gay. If you’ve seen the video of the Iowa Mayor Pete supporter who just found out he’s gay and wants to take her vote back, you have a preview of the 2020 election if Buttigieg is the nominee. It’s terrible but this is the reality of a homophobic society outside of major cities.

I think that Bloomberg is safe. He can clearly gain support from both traditional Democrats but also Republicans who want a return to normalcy. Bloomberg will confidently beat Trump. Bernie would win Democrats and likely excite young voters but Republicans simply cannot vote for someone that far left. Bernie will cost Democrats the election.

I’m cheering on Bloomberg from the sidelines. There’s no other safe choice.

 

[BurlOak]

Not only that but Bloomberg is well respected in America, specifically the business world. He is successful and intelligent version of Trump.

Problem is, the Trump economy is booming - it would be near impossible for Democrats to campaign on that angle.
Similar thing in Canada. Harper was the smartest by far, so when Liberals chose Trudeau over Garneau, they admitted they had no chance of matching Harper on intelligence and policy, and opted for nostalgia and sex appeal.
Are there any Kennedy's for the Democrats to choose from?

 

[Richard White]

Are there any Kennedy's for the Democrats to choose from?

Closest thing is Bloomberg.

 

[Towered]

Harper was the smartest by far, so when Liberals chose Trudeau over Garneau, they admitted they had no chance of matching Harper on intelligence and policy, and opted for nostalgia and sex appeal.

How come Harper wasn't smart enough to beat Trudeau?

 

[Towered]

Are there any Kennedy's for the Democrats to choose from?

Joe Kennedy. He's a real firebrand - I could definitely see him running for president in the future.

 

[AlbertC]

Bloomberg's unusual campaign: $10m ads, self-funding and a Super Tuesday focus

The billionaire ex-mayor decided to forgo New Hampshire and all other early primary states and has invested $188m in his campaign

Daniel Strauss in Manchester
Sun 9 Feb 2020 07.00 GMT

In their stump speeches, advertising, and meet-and-greets, the top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates are eagerly sniping at each other as they criss cross the Granite state in the final days before the critical New Hampshire Democratic primary on Tuesday.

Yet one person is conspicuously absent. Looming over the race is fellow candidate and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire who has decided to completely forgo New Hampshire and all other early primary states to instead invest heavily in the crucial set of Super Tuesday states that vote on 3 March – an unconventional and risky strategy.

Bloomberg's unusual campaign: $10m ads, self-funding and a Super Tuesday focus

The billionaire ex-mayor decided to forgo New Hampshire and all other early primary states and has invested $188m in his campaign

www.theguardian.com

 

[Admiral Beez]

I tend to agree that Buttigieg has the momentum to build a movement that even Conservatives can get behind... but for one thing: he’s gay.

The US is a pseudo-theocracy. They have trouble with women candidates, so homosexual ones would be a tall order.

 

[wild goose chase]

I'm a Bernie fan.

 

[wild goose chase]

Problem is, the Trump economy is booming - it would be near impossible for Democrats to campaign on that angle.
Similar thing in Canada. Harper was the smartest by far, so when Liberals chose Trudeau over Garneau, they admitted they had no chance of matching Harper on intelligence and policy, and opted for nostalgia and sex appeal.
Are there any Kennedy's for the Democrats to choose from?

I'm personally not a big fan of the love of political dynasty for its own sake kind of thing. It strikes me as being a bit old-fashioned and old-world-ish, rather than modern. If a candidate is good, I'd feel like, let them stand on their own merits, not only because they have a family (or marriage) tie to someone who already became famous.

But I realize that's not always the majority view. After all, political dynasties and their stories captivate the public eye.

Interestingly enough, although the Trudeaus (and the Fords!) get the spotlight for this in more contemporary times, I feel like before the first decade or two of the 21st century, you didn't really feel that political dynasties were that much of a thing in Canada compared to many countries. We didn't really have as much of the influence of family clout in politics in the 20th century that the Kennedys, the Bush family etc. did stateside (or at least at that level).

 

[gabe]

i remember in 2008 people saying no one would vote for a black man with a name like Barack Hussein Obama.

Pete Buttigieg is not a effeminate/stereotypical/flaming gay guy, He's a devout Christian war vet who eats Chick-fil-A. I think he will have no trouble winning over the rural white voters. Even if they don't agree with his "lifestyle" As for winning over black voters, yeah that will be a problem, and he can't win the election without that demographic.