Your 2020 Presidential Candidate Speculation Thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

Well, since Gabbneb still isn't here to kick around anymore I guess I'll take the reins again.

Danny gets the honors:

I think it would be reasonable for any of the following Democrats to run for President:

Cory Booker
Kamala Harris
Tim Kaine
Julian Castro
Amy Klobuchar
Deval Patrick
Tammy Duckworth
Tom Perez
Keith Ellison
Donna Brazile oops, sorry
Kirsten Gillibrand

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

― the Hannah Montana of the Korean War (DJP), Friday, November 10, 2017 3:31 PM (thirty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Friday, 10 November 2017 21:07 (one year ago) Permalink

medicare and social security for all. free college tuition. tax the rich to pay for it

reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 10 November 2017 21:08 (one year ago) Permalink

And I guess for Republicans we have:

Trump
Cruz
Sasse
Kasich?

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Friday, 10 November 2017 21:09 (one year ago) Permalink

Moore

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 November 2017 21:09 (one year ago) Permalink

I assume Sanders will run again until/unless he explicitly rules it out

Simon H., Friday, 10 November 2017 21:10 (one year ago) Permalink

Kasich is almost a certainty.

Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Friday, 10 November 2017 21:11 (one year ago) Permalink

the four women on that list are more impressive than any of the men imo

Dan S, Friday, 10 November 2017 21:12 (one year ago) Permalink

Dolores is missing from this list

Simon H., Friday, 10 November 2017 21:14 (one year ago) Permalink

Is that Sarah Sanders?

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 November 2017 21:25 (one year ago) Permalink

here we go

sleeve, Saturday, 11 November 2017 00:51 (one year ago) Permalink

eff gabbneb and this thread

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 11 November 2017 01:21 (one year ago) Permalink

aka "This is the thread where we make premature ejaculations"

A is for (Aimless), Saturday, 11 November 2017 01:24 (one year ago) Permalink

the rock
tim tebow

brimstead, Saturday, 11 November 2017 01:34 (one year ago) Permalink

I don't think there's any chance whatsoever that Pop would run, but I wouldn't not vote for him.

Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Saturday, 11 November 2017 01:50 (one year ago) Permalink

lol morbs. How long ago was gabbneb banished? Seems like about ten years ago now.

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Saturday, 11 November 2017 14:16 (one year ago) Permalink

his crackpot insights into the political affiliations of the critical ozark mountain czech-american bloc were a thorn in the side of the 2016 threads iirc

Doctor Casino, Saturday, 11 November 2017 14:24 (one year ago) Permalink

How long ago was gabbneb banished? Seems like about ten years ago now.

gabbneb was banned about four or five years** back, then he returned for at least a year as benbbag (or some such moniker). that gabbneb had come back was not a secret. he behaved for a time, then was banned again maybe a year** back.

**chronology subject to a weak memory for such trivia

A is for (Aimless), Saturday, 11 November 2017 18:47 (one year ago) Permalink

I feel like the Democrats have a ton of great VP candidates, but no Presidential candidates yet.

grawlix (unperson), Saturday, 11 November 2017 19:18 (one year ago) Permalink

Julian Castro would have been a great VP pick this time IMO (and probably in 2020) but he doesn't have Obama's charisma to leap from minor political office to President so quickly.

louise ck (milo z), Saturday, 11 November 2017 19:22 (one year ago) Permalink

He's kind of screwed in that regard, though, Texas won't be electing a Democrat to a statewide office just yet.

louise ck (milo z), Saturday, 11 November 2017 19:23 (one year ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

The Inevitability of Kamala Harris

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Sunday, 3 December 2017 18:13 (one year ago) Permalink

Kamala Harris would make for a very interesting race, assuming Trump survives to run again as incumbent. Her presence on the ballot would ensure Trump would retain all the social conservatives whose hatred of Hillary was deeply entwined with her being a woman and perceived as a liberal and feminist. On the flip side of that, Harris would easily grab HRC's core constituencies for herself.

The main interest for me would be in what issues she chose to highlight as the definition of her politics and how she'd react to the inevitable attacks about being 'soft' (iow, being a woman). Would she hit hard on profressive issues, or soft peddle herself as a centrist, or 'triangulate' in a Clintonian way?

Any way, a national campaign is a brutal trial by fire. I wish her well, if she decides to run.

A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 3 December 2017 19:38 (one year ago) Permalink

I still see the Dem nomination coming down to Harris vs. Gillibrand, and I'd be ok with voting for either.

Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Sunday, 3 December 2017 19:42 (one year ago) Permalink

i really dig gillibrand.

sean gramophone, Sunday, 3 December 2017 19:50 (one year ago) Permalink

For this outsider, after the last month or so, I really don't see how the nomination goes to anyone but a woman. The anger and the energy is there, and I would assume anyone trying to portray it as 'tokenistic' or only about identity would be shouted down pretty fast.

Frederik B, Sunday, 3 December 2017 19:58 (one year ago) Permalink

"Inevitable" is an albatross as a political tag

Οὖτις, Sunday, 3 December 2017 20:09 (one year ago) Permalink

The one that seems to be getting dragged down by the 'inevitable' tag is Bernie, or is it just me? That that profile of Harris includes so many snide remarks about his voters illustrate that quite well, imo.

Frederik B, Sunday, 3 December 2017 20:42 (one year ago) Permalink

i really dig gillibrand.

I can't remember if it was Pod Save America or Axelrod's podcast where she did it, but Gillibrand openly and convincingly apologized for a vote she once cast and that she now has a full understanding of why it was the wrong side to take on an issue (gun related legislation, iirc) and I've never heard a politician on any level in either party be so contrite and willingly admit to being wrong. That won me over on her for sure (and voting no on all of Trump's cabinet appointments for as long she did helped).

Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Sunday, 3 December 2017 21:19 (one year ago) Permalink

At the Women's March almost a year ago, Harris was a shockingly flat public speaker. I wonder if she has improved since then? Compared to the fired up Duckworth and Gillibrand, she just wasn't that compelling.

Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 3 December 2017 21:39 (one year ago) Permalink

Gillibrand wanted to run in 2016 but that was not going to happen with Hillary around. But she is well connected in NY and is very good at raising money.

Not really sure what the core source of love for Harris is.

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Sunday, 3 December 2017 21:50 (one year ago) Permalink

Also, the Kamala article mentionsJason Kander as a possible candidate.

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Sunday, 3 December 2017 22:00 (one year ago) Permalink

re Johnny Fever

I think I heard the same (Axelrod) interview, and it's largely responsible for my pro-Gillibrand feelings. Contrast the way she talks about this stuff - or, say, Bill Clinton on The Daily - with Kamala Harris's bland calculations and I know where I fall. Even pre-election, she was loudly advocating Sanders and Warren.

sean gramophone, Monday, 4 December 2017 00:40 (one year ago) Permalink

I would really prefer not to have a prosecutor as president tbh

Simon H., Monday, 4 December 2017 00:41 (one year ago) Permalink

(re: KH)

Simon H., Monday, 4 December 2017 00:41 (one year ago) Permalink

I’d take Harris over Booker every time, at least

.oO (silby), Monday, 4 December 2017 00:45 (one year ago) Permalink

My guess would be that criminal justice reform is going to be a bigger issue than it was in 2016, and whether or not that hurts or helps KH I don't know. According to that article she could run on that issue if she wanted to, and I'd guess she'd win if she managed to do so.

Frederik B, Monday, 4 December 2017 12:02 (one year ago) Permalink

former prosecutor is not a career path that leads one to restrict fellow prosecutors' discretion, which is what is necessary to accomplish criminal justice reform.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/are-prosecutors-the-key-to-justice-reform/483252/

El Tomboto, Monday, 4 December 2017 18:03 (one year ago) Permalink

agreed

my current faves: Gillibrand, Duckworth, and Oregon's Junior Senator Jeff Merkley.

sleeve, Monday, 4 December 2017 18:15 (one year ago) Permalink

"Inevitable" is an albatross as a political tag

especially 3 years out from an election

flappy bird, Monday, 4 December 2017 18:18 (one year ago) Permalink

i really dig gillibrand.

I can't remember if it was Pod Save America or Axelrod's podcast where she did it, but Gillibrand openly and convincingly apologized for a vote she once cast and that she now has a full understanding of why it was the wrong side to take on an issue (gun related legislation, iirc) and I've never heard a politician on any level in either party be so contrite and willingly admit to being wrong. That won me over on her for sure (and voting no on all of Trump's cabinet appointments for as long she did helped).

― Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Sunday, December 3, 2017 4:19 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i think it was immigration actually, unless she's done it twice, in which case all the better.

evol j, Monday, 4 December 2017 18:21 (one year ago) Permalink

one month passes...

The Secret to Understanding Kamala Harris

Alan Watts (dandydonweiner), Thursday, 11 January 2018 22:32 (one year ago) Permalink

nothing to add here pic.twitter.com/ARYNwCaqA3

— Shuja Haider (@shujaxhaider) January 12, 2018

Simon H., Friday, 12 January 2018 13:52 (one year ago) Permalink

one month passes...

Warren says she's not running.

http://www.newser.com/story/256430/warren-not-running-for-president-but-hedges-on-one-thing.html

Simon H., Sunday, 11 March 2018 20:07 (eleven months ago) Permalink

Warren is pretty clear about it every time she gets asked. I don't know why it makes news sometimes and doesn't at others.

Johnny Fever, Sunday, 11 March 2018 20:59 (eleven months ago) Permalink

I have no idea whether she will in fact run, but anytime anyone says "I'm not running" without further specification, they should be understood to be referring only to the present moment and not any future moment.

Moo Vaughn, Sunday, 11 March 2018 21:05 (eleven months ago) Permalink

Warren will not run.

El Tomboto, Sunday, 11 March 2018 22:24 (eleven months ago) Permalink

but who will unite the dems, whoooooooo

NBA YoungBoy named Rocky Raccoon (m bison), Sunday, 11 March 2018 22:30 (eleven months ago) Permalink

my point that the best politicians are the ones that are able to adjust their positions to suit their constituents and the times.

and what if she's lying her ass off now?

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 16:43 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Politicians generally govern on the policies they run on to maintain the support of the people who voted for them. Maybe there are cases in history where someone did the dramatic heel turn and reversed a stance upon getting safely elected?

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 16:55 (three weeks ago) Permalink

except in Morbz' world, where every politician is either a supervillain or a superhero

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 16:58 (three weeks ago) Permalink

and what if she's lying her ass off now?

I mean really there's no logic here, who's to say she wasn't lying 5 years ago and her position now is her *actual* deeply held position? Maybe you should meet her and stare into her eyes so you can read her soul like Dubya would have.

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 16:59 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Maybe there are cases in history where someone did the dramatic heel turn and reversed a stance upon getting safely elected?

Is this really that uncommon? I can think of several examples from Canadian politics.

Locked in silent monologue, in silent scream (Sund4r), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:03 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Politicians generally govern on the policies they run on to maintain the support of the people who voted for them. Maybe there are cases in history where someone did the dramatic heel turn and reversed a stance upon getting safely elected?

― Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, January 30, 2019 8:55 AM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this happens all the time

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:04 (three weeks ago) Permalink

xpost
yes but Canadians are a passionate, hot blooded people who often get swept up in the moment

Blues Guitar Solo Heatmap (Free Download) (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:05 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I’m not sure of the value in trying to find moments from years ago when a candidate was in a different situation with a different political equation to cast aspersions. And there can be no possibility of explanation or forgiveness. And all that to completely ignore “hey what is she actually running on?”

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:05 (three weeks ago) Permalink

it is obviously fair game to examine a politician’s record and weigh it against his or her campaign rhetoric

it’s clear harris is an excellent politician and is the type to be prepared with a great politician’s answer to all the usual tough questions. I’d personally appreciate a little more insight into why she feels those positions were wrong before and why she’s changed her mind aside from the changing political winds

k3vin k., Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:06 (three weeks ago) Permalink

This just happened with Trudeau on electoral reform and probably more I'm blanking on rn xps

resident hack (Simon H.), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:06 (three weeks ago) Permalink

hey Nerdstrom, Obama's 2008 'policies' included a buncha shit he never did.

where every politician is either a supervillain or a superhero

no, they're all assorted varieties of shit. It's what happens when you have to appeal to morons (somewhere between a third and half of the human race). People don't follow actual policy implementation bcz it's motherfucking boring.

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:07 (three weeks ago) Permalink

just deliverin' some Realism milkshakes today

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:07 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Xxpost “All the time “?

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:08 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Perhaps maybe if you include stuff Obama didn’t actually run on

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:09 (three weeks ago) Permalink

perhaps maybe you're an idiot

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:10 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I have zero doubt Kamala Harris would be approximately one million times better as president than the shitstain currently occupying the WH, but that also goes for all of the others i guess.

omar little, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:12 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Xpost name a single thing you had in mind with “it happens all the time”

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:14 (three weeks ago) Permalink

yes, we all agree almost anyone would be a better prez than DJT, including prosecuting many of the same Forever Wars more efficiently.

now can you self-anointed experts all plz fuck off?

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:18 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Liberals in Canada promised that if they won the last federal election in Canada it would be the last federal election in Canada under FPTP. This year's federal election will be under FPTP as they decided against electoral reform.

Obama pledged to close Guantánamo Bay.

Liberal Democrats in the UK ran on not raising VAT if they were elected, as part of the coalition government they voted to raise VAT.

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:19 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Obama pledged to close Guantánamo Bay.

lol try harder

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:21 (three weeks ago) Permalink

that was literally the first executive order he signed after being sworn in, and he was blocked by Congress.

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:21 (three weeks ago) Permalink

which continued to fight him over it for his entire administration

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:22 (three weeks ago) Permalink

read my lips

We were never Breeting Borting (President Keyes), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:23 (three weeks ago) Permalink

he didn't add "unless I am blocked by Congress."

also promised to walk a picket line with a union HAHAHAHAHA

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:23 (three weeks ago) Permalink

also said he was "against stupid wars" and continued to wage about seven of them

also something about letting Dr Morbius choose his own doctor

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:24 (three weeks ago) Permalink

that was literally the first executive order he signed after being sworn in, and he was blocked by Congress.

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, January 30, 2019 9:21 AM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

seem to remember obama having a democratic majority in the legislature for 2 years

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:27 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I’d personally appreciate a little more insight into why she feels those positions were wrong before and why she’s changed her mind aside from the changing political winds

― k3vin k., Wednesday, January 30, 2019 11:06 AM (twenty minutes ago)

otm

One Thing All ILXors Have In Common, Brace Yourself (WmC), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:28 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Okay Ted Cruz

“also something about letting Dr Morbius choose his own doctor”

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:34 (three weeks ago) Permalink

seem to remember obama having a democratic majority in the legislature for 2 years

yeah, and they fought him over it

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:34 (three weeks ago) Permalink

hey like you never agree with the mass murderers in the CIA, right NP?

(ie dont be a pussy)

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:35 (three weeks ago) Permalink

fuck all presidents really

wake me when it's over

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:36 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Not reading any of the Canada or UK stuff.

Obama was critical of Iraq war but I remember him repeatedly promising to go after terrorists in Afghanistan

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:38 (three weeks ago) Permalink

also promised to walk a picket line with a union

this is not a policy position fyi

if you can point me to Obama's anti-union legislation though let me know

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:38 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Obama also drew down all our troops from Iraq (I know, Morbz thinks this war is still going on)

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:39 (three weeks ago) Permalink

why am I bothering

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:39 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I think we can be forgiven for a lack of clarity on which wars are or are not going on

Norm’s Superego (silby), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:40 (three weeks ago) Permalink

WWII is still going on too iirc, after all we still have troops in Germany.

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:42 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Not reading any of the Canada or UK stuff.

lol

resident hack (Simon H.), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:42 (three weeks ago) Permalink

when will Obama finally end the Korean War

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:42 (three weeks ago) Permalink

seem to remember obama having a democratic majority in the legislature for 2 years

yeah, and they fought him over it

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, January 30, 2019 9:34 AM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

his administration also fought against transferring prisoners who had been cleared by the periodic review board despite that very transferring being their stated aim ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

but yeah, it's not fair to call something a broken promise when it would have cost political capital to get it done

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:44 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Obama was against the individual mandate

We were never Breeting Borting (President Keyes), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:45 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I don't think it was a question of political capital as much as Obama didn't have leverage over the hawks in his party who wanted to block him over it, and had the authority to do so. The president is not an autocrat.

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:46 (three weeks ago) Permalink

and I thought the transfer thing was because the Senators of the states they were gonna get transferred to objected and blocked them

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:47 (three weeks ago) Permalink

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius) at 11:07 30 Jan 19

just deliverin' some Realism milkshakes today


2 Morbz 1 Cup

Blues Guitar Solo Heatmap (Free Download) (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 17:59 (three weeks ago) Permalink

gross

Rhine Jive Click Bait (Hadrian VIII), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 18:04 (three weeks ago) Permalink

sorry shakes Puritanism is alive and well

Blues Guitar Solo Heatmap (Free Download) (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 18:09 (three weeks ago) Permalink

lol

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 18:14 (three weeks ago) Permalink

multiple "viral" 80s Bernie vids making the rounds lately but none seem particularly damning (or interesting)

resident hack (Simon H.), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 21:25 (three weeks ago) Permalink

where someone did the dramatic heel turn and reversed a stance upon getting safely elected?

this happens all the time

There's a good case to be made that Trump made half a dozen outrageous promises while campaigning, such as 'every one will have great medical insurance and it will be cheaper, too', then transparently did the opposite, but he was transparently conning people in a way rarely seen before.

In general, presidents reverse themselves far less often than Congressional reps, who arrive in Congress and discover they have almost no power as individuals and they need to compromise their positions to fall in line with their party or to horse trade their vote. By contrast, the president has the power to do more things by fiat and doesn't need to heel turn to fall in line.

I'm sure Jim in vancouver sees it more in Canadian politics than we do in the USA, because parliamentary politics are differently structured than here.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 30 January 2019 21:28 (three weeks ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.