Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

wolfpack1

2020 Potential Democratic Candidates for President....

Recommended Posts

Just now, NorCalCoug said:

I actually like Biden as a person, disagree with him politically obviously...  Do you think he would really make a run at his age?

I didn't realize he was 75.  I thought he was younger than that.  I find it unlikely that he will run in 2020 as he'll be 77 then.  But you never know, Trump will be 74 in 2020 so there's that. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NorCalCoug said:

I actually like Biden as a person, disagree with him politically obviously...  Do you think he would really make a run at his age?

Biden is 75 and Trump is 72.  70 is the new 50 :-)   I think he could, but this is his last chance.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, alum93 said:

Biden is 75 and Trump is 72.  70 is the new 50 :-)   I think he could, but this is his last chance.  

Yes but that would put Trump at a potential midpoint of an <assumed> 8-year presidency and Biden at the beginning of one.  It’s a big difference - especially at that age.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mugtang said:

I didn't realize he was 75.  I thought he was younger than that.  I find it unlikely that he will run in 2020 as he'll be 77 then.  But you never know, Trump will be 74 in 2020 so there's that. 

Agree.

There is also a big push in the Democratic Party for Boomer candidates to step aside for the next generation of politicians. It's not just the Progressive wing of the Party that wants this in a big way.

I don't see Democrats running even a 70 year old (or near that age) candidate.

We'll end up with a Kamala Harris, or Kristen Gillibrand, or someone else decades younger than Biden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

Yes but that would put Trump at a potential midpoint of an <assumed> 8-year presidency and Biden at the beginning of one.  It’s a big difference - especially at that age.

I think if Biden did run, it would be under the assumption it was a 1 term deal to get rid of Trump, and then let fresh blood run in 2024.  75 is getting way up there though, especially considering election is 2 1/2 years away.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Agree.

There is also a big push in the Democratic Party for Boomer candidates to step aside for the next generation of politicians. It's not just the Progressive wing of the Party that wants this in a big way.

I don't see Democrats running even a 70 year old (or near that age) candidate.

We'll end up with a Kamala Harris, or Kristen Gillibrand, or someone else decades younger than Biden.

It won't be Kamala Harris, an African American woman from California.  You already have California and NY in the bag.  You need to go after the midwest and also swing states - Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and down south Florida.  She could be a VP.  As much as i hate to say it,  i think you are going to have to have a male presidential candidate going against Trump to get elected.  VP is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, alum93 said:

I think if Biden did run, it would be under the assumption it was a 1 term deal to get rid of Trump, and then let fresh blood run in 2024.  75 is getting way up there though, especially considering election is 2 1/2 years away.  

While I agree with this, I think the Dems first choice would be a person that can fill the WH for two terms.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, alum93 said:

It won't be Kamala Harris, an African American woman from California.  You already have California and NY in the bag.  You need to go after the midwest and also swing states - Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and down south Florida.  She could be a VP.  As much as i hate to say it,  i think you are going to have to have a male presidential candidate going against Trump to get elected.  VP is different.

I agree with the geography argument.   I'm not sure gender matters.  Male or female, it's got to be someone that can respond to Trump's antics and words with professionalism and humility.  Someone that has extremely strong emotional intelligence.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pokebball said:

I agree with the geography argument.   I'm not sure gender matters.  Male of female, it's got to be someone that can respond to Trump's antics and words with professionalism and humility.  Someone that has extremely strong emotional intelligence.

I personally have no problem with a female candidate, i am speculating on the voters in the states i mentioned.  And the candidate they are going against.  It would be awesome if gender didn't matter.  Maybe i'll be proven wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, alum93 said:

It won't be Kamala Harris, an African American woman from California.  You already have California and NY in the bag.  You need to go after the midwest and also swing states - Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and down south Florida.  She could be a VP.  As much as i hate to say it,  i think you are going to have to have a male presidential candidate going against Trump to get elected.  VP is different.

No WAY Democrats run a male.

The only exception I can think of is running an African American Male.

 

The whole identity politics thing is the Democrats' #1 virtue-signalling priority, and they're not running a white male.

White Males are Bad and EVIL in the Democratic party, and you're only welcome as one of those if you hate yourself, and blame yourself for all of the "Colonial Evils" of the past.

 

Democrats might even run a ticket with 2 Females on it, and try to run as the "No sexual harrassment" ticket.

Cuz that's what Democrats do, virtue-signal.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alum93 said:

I personally have no problem with a female candidate, i am speculating on the voters in the states i mentioned.  And the candidate they are going against.  

I understand your point and didn't think it was you personally.

I just don't think I agree with your opinion that a male would have a better chance because of middle America.  In fact, I think a female that responds to Trump professionally, that could control her emotions and not play his stupid games, would do quite well.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Thomas said:

No WAY Democrats run a male.

The only exception I can think of is running an African American Male.

 

The whole identity politics thing is the Democrats' #1 virtue-signalling priority, and they're not running a white male.

White Males are Bad and EVIL in the Democratic party, and you're only welcome as one of those if you hate yourself, and blame yourself for all of the "Colonial Evils" of the past.

 

 

Right.  That's why they have run all of one female presidential candidate - and lost.  Makes perfect sense they would not only run a female again, but an African American.  That would get all the red hat wearing voters to vote blue in the midwest.  Great plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Agree, but when you can win the nomination of one of the 2 major parties as a former reality TV star, all bets are off, right?

 

A reality star who was much more qualified than the community organizer who preceded him.

It would be funny if Biden ran.  It would also dann near assure a second term for Trump.

It would be Biden's 3rd try, right? 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pokebball said:

I understand your point and didn't think it was you personally.

I just don't think I agree with your opinion that a male would have a better chance because of middle America.  In fact, I think a female that responds to Trump professionally, that could control her emotions and not play his stupid games, would do quite well.

Sure, but we're talking about a female Democrat, likely a Progressive. 
No way in HELL she can control her emotions and do this, she'll be all-emotion all the time.

...and Trump will eviscerate her for overreacting to his bait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, alum93 said:

Right.  That's why they have run all of one female presidential candidate - and lost.  Makes perfect sense they would not only run a female again, but an African American.  That would get all the red hat wearing voters to vote blue in the midwest.  Great plan.

I didn't say it was a smart plan, I said it was a likely move for the Democrats.


They have ZERO interest in fixing what they did wrong in 2016, they are using the same playbook, and it will prioritize virtue signalling and Identity Politics far over correcting the 2016 Electoral Mistakes.

In some ways, most Democrats would rather go down with the ship while virtue-signalling than actually change things and win elections.

Just like the immigration issue, which they in NO way want to resolve, because they'd rather have it as a campaign issue than a resolved situation.

Gotta virtue signal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thomas said:

Sure, but we're talking about a female Democrat, likely a Progressive. 
No way in HELL she can control her emotions and do this, she'll be all-emotion all the time.

...and Trump will eviscerate her for overreacting to his bait.

Don't forget that Trump voters don't care one bit how he talks about women or directly to them either.  Whether it's grabbing their you know what, bleeding from wherever, or making fun of their looks, his voters are fine with it.  Trust me, Democrats will run a male in 2020 as presidential.  I do see a good chance at a female VP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Thomas said:

I didn't say it was a smart plan, I said it was a likely move for the Democrats.


They have ZERO interest in fixing what they did wrong in 2016, they are using the same playbook, and it will prioritize virtue signalling and Identity Politics far over correcting the 2016 Electoral Mistakes.

In some ways, most Democrats would rather go down with the ship while virtue-signalling than actually change things and win elections.

Just like the immigration issue, which they in NO way want to resolve, because they'd rather have it as a campaign issue than a resolved situation.

Gotta virtue signal.

 

You are right, and very smart.  They are going to spend millions of dollars with zero interest in winning.  You are on a roll this morning.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, alum93 said:

You are right, and very smart.  They are going to spend millions of dollars with zero interest in winning.  You are on a roll this morning.  

That's what they did last time.

Instead of responding to the polls in rust belt states, they kept playing from a 2008/2012 playbook, and ignoring those states, because they were "a BLUE WALL".

They don't learn from their mistakes, and they can't even get over the 2016 loss, it's eternal excuses and non-acceptance of reality.

 

Their strategy will be different in 2020, but it will still be based on the same priorities, and Virtue Signalling is one of the highest ones, even though it's stupid, and gains them zero votes from the middle that they need.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...