Jump to content

Archived

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

wolfpack1

2020 Potential Democratic Candidates for President....

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Wasn’t there talk of Kasich and Hickenlooper running as a “dream ticket” in 2020?   

No, no talks about that because nobody dreams about that.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Wasn’t there talk of Kasich and Hickenlooper running as a “dream ticket” in 2020?   

I don't know, but it's no Dream Ticket.

All one side has to do to get their guy in there is bump off the President, which I thought was one of the big reasons why the 12th Amendment was passed in the first place. (Prior to the 12th, the 2nd place finisher for POTUS automatically became the VP... one of the reasons the VP has next to no Constitutional responsibilities.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alum93 said:

How do you know they haven't learned when we haven't even had a midterm or (obviously) presidential election?  It's been whole 18 months.  See previous post about last 7 presidential elections and cycles - Republican, Democrat, Democrat, Republican, Republican, Democrat, Democrat.  Even if Trump does win in 2020, that would just be par for the course going back to 1992.  Bush Sr. was the only one that couldn't secure a second term.

True, and also totally true that it was a huge economic recession over a short period of time that got him booted from the White House.

I don't see that happening in 2020, but using the 1992 model, it would be too early to see it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thomas said:

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.

 

The polls in the rust belt were telling everyone that Clinton was going to win and possibly easily. That is one of the reasons why Clinton didn't visit the upper midwest a lot during the final month of the campaign because they believed it was all over in those states. But at the same time they expected things to happen that didn't happen as I pointed out in an earlier thread. The only part I think they may have "ignored" was how many people really don't like Hillary Clinton. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, as some suggest, I think it was because her personality is kind of harsh talked down to people but also presented nothing new. 

However I guess next to Trump's likeable ratings, she was OK. I don't remember an election though where both candidate's likeable ratings were well below 50%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Bush 43 yes, Richard Nixon, no.

But you have a point, it's been 50 years since it was done without an incumbent VP, and 60 years since he WAS the VP.

 

I was watching an old election video on You Tube when Bush ran for president and during it I believe they said a sitting VP, which is why I said that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Wasn’t there talk of Kasich and Hickenlooper running as a “dream ticket” in 2020?   

Just found an article where friends and close advisors believe that Hickenlooper is seriously considering a run in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wolfpack1 said:

The polls in the rust belt were telling everyone that Clinton was going to win and possibly easily. That is one of the reasons why Clinton didn't visit the upper midwest a lot during the final month of the campaign because they believed it was all over in those states. But at the same time they expected things to happen that didn't happen as I pointed out in an earlier thread. The only part I think they may have "ignored" was how many people really don't like Hillary Clinton. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, as some suggest, I think it was because her personality is kind of harsh talked down to people but also presented nothing new. 

However I guess next to Trump's likeable ratings, she was OK. I don't remember an election though where both candidate's likeable ratings were well below 50%

This was a real and huge issue for sure.

Hillary has been wildly unpopular with the public ever since her 1994 attempt to address congress over Healthcare.

The public didn't care for her personality, her approach, nor her trying to get into the political process as First Lady.

 

That feeling has persisted among a large portion of the electorate. Only in New York could she ever have carpetbagged and won a Senate Seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wolfpack1 said:

Just found an article where friends and close advisors believe that Hickenlooper is seriously considering a run in 2020.

I hope he does.

He's a white male, and will be worked against hard by the DNC, and will further fracture the Democratic POTUS Candidate situation.

 

Can't see ANY Westerner winning nomination, unless it's someone like Harris of CA.

Hickenlooper is way too moderate to ever get nominated by what the Democratic Party has become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Wasn’t there talk of Kasich and Hickenlooper running as a “dream ticket” in 2020?   

Whose dream ticket is that? 

When Kasich pledged to support the GOP candidate and then backed out, his integrity and credibility took a big hit.

I liked Kasich right up to the point of him proving himself to be untrustworthy. 

All the guy had to do was keep his mouth shut.  Even Jeb was able to do that.

As far as I'm concerned, Kasich shot himself in the foot.  I will never vote for him. He's just another sleazy, phony, politician who can't be trusted to keep his promises.

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

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Thomas said:

I hope he does.

He's a white male, and will be worked against hard by the DNC, and will further fracture the Democratic POTUS Candidate situation.

 

Can't see ANY Westerner winning nomination, unless it's someone like Harris of CA.

Hickenlooper is way too moderate to ever get nominated by what the Democratic Party has become.

Right now I think the only one that has a shot is Kamala Harris. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wolfpack1 said:

Right now I think the only one that has a shot is Kamala Harris. 

Agree.

The temptation of running a Black Female for POTUS is just too great for the Democrats to pass up.

It has all of the right virtue-signalling associated with it, despite the fact that she is WAY WAY too far left to ever woo the independents & swing voters needed.

 

Kamala Harris is a perfect storm of a windmill-tilt for 2020, made even better by a VP Candidate like Gillibrand, McCaskill (who may lose in Nov), or etc.

Democrats will call it the #MeToo ticket, while everyone else will probably call it the "PussyHat" ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Agree.

The temptation of running a Black Female for POTUS is just too great for the Democrats to pass up.

It has all of the right virtue-signalling associated with it, despite the fact that she is WAY WAY too far left to ever woo the independents & swing voters needed.

 

Kamala Harris is a perfect storm of a windmill-tilt for 2020, made even better by a VP Candidate like Gillibrand, McCaskill (who may lose in Nov), or etc.

Democrats will call it the #MeToo ticket, while everyone else will probably call it the "PussyHat" ticket.

Well, just saying she is the only one right now with a name out West that people will recognize. If the Montana Governor or Oregon Senator (see I can't even recall the names and I just read an article on them) run, they aren't going to have the name recognition there. Neither with Hickenlooper. Although the name is fun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wolfpack1 said:

Well, just saying she is the only one right now with a name out West that people will recognize. If the Montana Governor or Oregon Senator (see I can't even recall the names and I just read an article on them) run, they aren't going to have the name recognition there. Neither with Hickenlooper. Although the name is fun

Agree on that.

"President Hickenlooper"

Wow, sounds like a total yokel from Beverly Hillbillies or Mayberry in Andy Griffith Show.

latest?cb=20110314195700

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Thomas said:

I hope not for Democrats' sakes.

 

The only two VPs to successfully run and win the Presidency in modern history without succession, etc, are Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush.

Everyone else has failed.

Not a great statistical trend to be following-on with.

The rate for return failed POTUS candidates is even worse.

How many do you think that is?

Richard Nixon failed in 1960, wasn't VP when he won in 1968.

Anyway, if you do a little research, you'll find out VP's running for the Presidency is a surprisingly small sample size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, renoskier said:

How many do you think that is?

Richard Nixon failed in 1960, wasn't VP when he won in 1968.

Anyway, if you do a little research, you'll find out VP's running for the Presidency is a surprisingly small sample size.

Not really.

Gore and Mondale are your guys there.

4 out of 12 POTUS election cycles is a decent sample size for a low-frequency event like the POTUS cycle.

Much worse than the VP record is the Senators' record.

Except for Obama, you have to go back to 1960 & JFK to fing another example of a Senator becoming POTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, renoskier said:

How many do you think that is?

Richard Nixon failed in 1960, wasn't VP when he won in 1968.

Anyway, if you do a little research, you'll find out VP's running for the Presidency is a surprisingly small sample size.

Maybe overall but from Nixon on we've had Mondale, Bush, Gore and now maybe the gaff master himself.

Should we include Ford with that group too?

 

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

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

Maybe overall but from Nixon on we've had Mondale, Bush, Gore and now maybe the gaff master himself.

Should we include Ford with that group too?

 

Nope.

Like Johnson, he came into the Presidency by succession, not election.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Nope.

Like Johnson, he came into the Presidency by succession, not election.

 

But unlike Johnson, Ford ran for reelection.  

Wasn't the criteria former VP's who ran for prez?

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

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders getting together early with a younger female VP candidate.  Perhaps Biden or Bernie could even commit to only one term and run their reelection campaign on behalf of their running mate.    

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...