Team Biden mulls far-out options to take on Trump in 2020

[Gestopft]

A status quo politician is exactly what will be appealing after 4 years of Trump. You know what won't be? One wacky character on the right and another on the left.

I think a status quo personality will be more appealing than status quo policies. The anti-establishment populist sentiments aren't going to simply dissipate, especially on the Progressive side- Trump is doing very little to fix the status quo, and people are still going to remember why they were seeking a change in 2020.

- - - Updated - - -

Hotly contested primaries where establishment types and progressives attack each other guarantees people will be slighted.

I don't necessarily disagree, but when you're down and out is supposed to be when you have the ideological fights. Dems need a new strategy, a new message, and likely some new blood to win- it takes a while for those things to come out, and things usually get shaken up in the process.

And far left idiots have already started the shit-slinging towards establishment Democrats for the November elections.

I mean...maybe the establishment Dems should stop shilling for Wall Street?

[Lenonis]

Now is the time to capitalize on the "Blue no matter who" movement to put up new blood, even if unknown, to get fresh faces in the party. This will be an election against Trump -- who the Dem candidate is frankly doesn't matter much. However putting up a bad one will depress turnout and risk losing the election.

The DNC also needs to get it's house in order. It should bar independents from co-opting the party label solely to get on the ballot. That's shady as hell and frankly is an insult to people who embrace the democratic party label. If Bernie is so passionate about his ideas and thinks they are winners he should run as an independent. His co-opting the DNC is just a sign he himself doesn't have faith in his ideas.

Plus he's too old. As is Biden.

Trump's age will be a great weakness to target in 2020 by savvy campaign ad writers. Nice dog whistle to blow there, especially for the new crop of Gen Z and Millennials who may be more inspired to vote than usual.

Find someone who isn't going to hit 90 in office please.

[Deletedaccount1]

Trump's age will be a great weakness to target in 2020 by savvy campaign ad writers. Nice dog whistle to blow there, especially for the new crop of Gen Z and Millennials who may be more inspired to vote than usual.

Find someone who isn't going to hit 90 in office please.

Mondale played the age card against Reagan heavily in the 1984 campaign. He went on to lose a historic defeat. I'm not sure voters, especially ones over 60, respond well to that strategy.

[Lenonis]

Mondale played the age card against Reagan heavily in the 1984 campaign. He went on to lose a historic defeat. I'm not sure voters, especially ones over 60, respond well to that strategy.

That's why you have to dog whistle. Don't call him old, call him out of touch. Call him not in sync with new voters. His attacks on video games for example. Lack of using a computer.

You don't play the age card as a 2x4 to the electorate. You do it subltely with a wink and a nod. Like how the right does it with racism and homophobia.

You don't say you hate the gays, you talk about the degradation of the traditional family. You don't talk about how you hate blacks you talk about urban welfare queens.

[Mafic]

Attacking Trump's age when Biden can't recognize a person is in a wheel chair isn't going to work lol.

[Lenonis]

Attacking Trump's age when Biden can't recognize a person is in a wheel chair isn't going to work lol.

....that's kind of my point. Picking Biden or Sanders is a bad choice because you just have a whole bunch of white old men on death's door running. It's so stupid we keep picking people who have no where to go but down in their physical and mental function to lead the country. You'd have thought we'd have learned from Reagan but nooope.

[NYC17]

Obama 2020!

[elaina]

Dems should probably run a white guy as clearly this country isn't as socially well-developed as we thought, based on the backlash in 2016. I would go so far as to say male running mate too unless she is the more moderate one. At least one of them needs to be young. Both need to be fresh faces at least in terms of the white house. A ton of obvious candidates already have too great of a stigma against them, regardless of whether it is all bullshit or not.... Hillary being the exemplar of this in 16.

I would also like to temper this by saying it's disgusting social demographic / perception shit like this matters so much.

Run Biden with a smart attractive 35y/o white woman would be hilarious.

[cubby]

Dems should probably run a white guy as clearly this country isn't as socially well-developed as we thought, based on the backlash in 2016. I would go so far as to say male running mate too unless she is the more moderate one. At least one of them needs to be young. Both need to be fresh faces at least in terms of the white house. A ton of obvious candidates already have too great of a stigma against them, regardless of whether it is all bullshit or not.... Hillary being the exemplar of this in 16.

I would also like to temper this by saying it's disgusting social demographic / perception shit like this matters so much.

Run Biden with a smart attractive 35y/o white woman would be hilarious.

I agree with you entirely. Biden has the energy of a 40 year old, good support, no demons, and could come out swinging. And yeah, it's awful this is where we are right now in the U.S.

Kamala Harris might be an interesting running mate. Groom her for 2028.

- - - Updated - - -

Attacking Trump's age when Biden can't recognize a person is in a wheel chair isn't going to work lol.

Biden's age is the only thing against him. Not sure what you're going on about re the wheel chair though. Unless you're just trying to amplify/lie about a small gaff.

[Mormolyce]

You guys aren't actually serious about a Biden run are you?

[Gestopft]

I'm not sure voters, especially ones over 60, respond well to that strategy.

Well at least voters over 60 are already a weak demographic for the Dems.

- - - Updated - - -

The DNC also needs to get it's house in order. It should bar independents from co-opting the party label solely to get on the ballot. That's shady as hell and frankly is an insult to people who embrace the democratic party label. If Bernie is so passionate about his ideas and thinks they are winners he should run as an independent. His co-opting the DNC is just a sign he himself doesn't have faith in his ideas.

I think you're perfectly aware that if Bernie were to run as an independent, it would more than likely hand the keys right back to Donald Trump. And also, how long should someone have been registered as Democrat in order to run? Wouldn't some form of enforcing that 'independents' don't get to run as Dems mean denying perfectly good candidates that could broaden the party's voter base?

[cubby]

Well at least voters over 60 are already a weak demographic for the Dems.

And thank god they are slowly dying off. Baby boomers are a blight on this nation (for the most part).

I think you're perfectly aware that if Bernie were to run as an independent, it would more than likely hand the keys right back to Donald Trump. And also, how long should someone have been registered as Democrat in order to run? Wouldn't some form of enforcing that 'independents' don't get to run as Dems mean denying perfectly good candidates that could broaden the party's voter base?

Bernie cannot be allowed to run as an independent. Period. Regardless of past mischievousness, Hillary and Bernie are done. I'd say that of Biden (and I have) but he has a certain energy about him, along with little baggage, that might work.

[Fattypudds]

WTB a younger Bernie Sanders

[Gestopft]

I mean Clinton and Obama were unknown just right before the primaries were they not?

At this point before the 2008 election, Obama had just finished his first year in the Senate, and was pretty much known for a good Democratic Convention speech and not much else iirc.

Clinton...I assume you jest.

[Gestopft]

Bill Clinton

Shit, I dunno lol. I wasn't paying attention to politics in '92. From what I can tell he had a similar national profile- on paper it could be larger than Obama's was, but with changes in media since then it might be a tossup, but: I was only five at the time, so grains of salt and such.

[ati87]

Shit, I dunno lol. I wasn't paying attention to politics in '92. From what I can tell he had a similar national profile- on paper it could be larger than Obama's was, but with changes in media since then it might be a tossup, but: I was only five at the time, so grains of salt and such.

He was governer plus since his name is Clinton Republicans have some sort of hate love obsession with him

[Lenonis]

I think you're perfectly aware that if Bernie were to run as an independent, it would more than likely hand the keys right back to Donald Trump. And also, how long should someone have been registered as Democrat in order to run? Wouldn't some form of enforcing that 'independents' don't get to run as Dems mean denying perfectly good candidates that could broaden the party's voter base?

I hold this notion that a political party's nominee for the highest office in the land should be a member of that political party.

Not sure why anyone finds that idea odd.

Also there sure is an argument to be made that having Bernie run as a Democrat helped Trump win.

Our two party started sucks. And I'm glad for Bernie's contributions in the political arena but what he did in 2016 was wrong and the DNC shouldn't have allowed it.

[Hobb]

Personally I would like the democrats to run somebody new, but if Biden is picked then he has my vote.

[Gestopft]

I hold this notion that a political party's nominee for the highest office in the land should be a member of that political party.

Not sure why anyone finds that idea odd.

1) Bernie was a registered member of the party while he was running, yes? But despite that technicality, I would agree that he co-opted the DNC to run. Now: how long before running should a potential candidate be registered? With the momentum on the left that is rising, should newly energized candidates that want to run for office as Democrats be disallowed if they weren't already party members? Are there some lines you're willing to draw?

2) I don't at all find it odd, but I can't completely agree with it because:
a) a de facto two-party system where two private organizations are the gatekeepers to almost all publicly elected offices already isn't particularly good for a lot of independent candidates, especially moderates. Third-party/indy runs usually doom the candidate's nearest ideological ally, and I'd rather that good candidates compete in an arena where they actually win.
b) Someone independent with different ideas can potentially broaden the coalition and bring new voters in that wouldn't have voted for a party to begin with. I'd say the Dems, in a historically weak position, need new ideas and new blood. They need new people to come in and really spark the ideological and policy discussions that will move the party forward.
c) If a candidate is capable of co-opting the party and legitimately competing with a party favorite, to me that indicates that the party in question isn't doing a good job representing their voters, and changes are needed. In our case, if the Dems were reflecting their voters' preferences well enough, Bernie a) would've flopped with party voters, or b) would've already been a Democrat to begin with.

Also there sure is an argument to be made that having Bernie run as a Democrat helped Trump win.

How would an independent Bernie run have helped Hillary win? Wouldn't most of his votes been sucked away from her?

[Lenonis]

1) Bernie was a registered member of the party while he was running, yes? But despite that technicality, I would agree that he co-opted the DNC to run. Now: how long before running should a potential candidate be registered? With the momentum on the left that is rising, should newly energized candidates that want to run for office as Democrats be disallowed if they weren't already party members? Are there some lines you're willing to draw?

I think there is a common sense approach -- and maybe it isn't so much the registering as a party member as much as changing affiliations and then running. I mean -- there needs to be safeguards. What is to stop.....say a republican to run as a democrat and have the republicans vote for them in the primary to wreak havoc on the DNC while the actual GOP nominee runs unopposed?

Or a Bernie just coopting the party label just because he can't get enough votes as an independent?

Parties should have control over who runs. The GOP is dealing with a nightmare issue in Illinois where an actual Nazi is running unopposed in a district here. These sorts of things should have safeguards against them. People who wear the party label should hold the same party values and demonstrate some amount of loyalty I'd say. Whatever that translates out into policy.

a) a de facto two-party system where two private organizations are the gatekeepers to almost all publicly elected offices already isn't particularly good for a lot of independent candidates, especially moderates. Third-party/indy runs usually doom the candidate's nearest ideological ally, and I'd rather that good candidates compete in an arena where they actually win.

Absolutely. Our system is broken this way. Fixing the two party system is really the ultimate solution. Allow Bernie to actual run as an independent and be competitive and not destroy the Dems because the right will have some version -- a Gary Johnson or whomever.

b) Someone independent with different ideas can potentially broaden the coalition and bring new voters in that wouldn't have voted for a party to begin with. I'd say the Dems, in a historically weak position, need new ideas and new blood. They need new people to come in and really spark the ideological and policy discussions that will move the party forward.

Yes. They need new blood in the party. Bernie pulled the pin on a grenade (admittedly a much needed one) tossed it into the DNC and then just casually walked away. And people want him to do it again. And I'm against it. Because he doesn't want to be a member of the democratic party. That's where as much as they didn't have a shot I think Johnson and Stein at least held to the idea that their beliefs should be judged on their own merit.

How would an independent Bernie run have helped Hillary win? Wouldn't most of his votes been sucked away from her?

No -- that's not what I meant. I meant the whole thing with Bernie and the DNC and Bernie not backing down quickly enough really splintered the party. There were no small amount of Bernie supporters that voted for Trump because they were so pissed at Hillary. Why? Because the DNC didn't support Bernie co-opting the party's label as an outsider. Which I think is a totally valid position. I just think the DNC went about it all sorts of fucked up ways that really was stupid and ill-done.

So, anyway -- I totally get what you are saying and agree with a significant amount of it. I just have a fundamental problem with the idea that someone can come into an established political party for the sole reason of co-opting the label so they have a shot of getting elected. If Bernie stayed in the Democratic party I'd have no issues -- but he dropped the party affiliate the second he lost -- and that caused my opinion on him to drop. It was the smart thing to do (for him) -- but it was shadier than he should be. Bernie should be better than that. If he wants to be the de facto leader of the Dems he should embrace the Dem label. Not borrow it like a halloween costume you can't wait to get out of because it's hot and itchy and smells bad.

I think you get my point on this.