Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Fugus]

What does Biden have that the Clintons don't already have in common?

--Sex scandals
--Money
--Indifference to minorities

But they seem both agreed with allowing more illegal immigrants voting writes.

I guess this is how they get their votes.

More examples of you lying.

[cubby]

More examples of you lying.

Just ignore him - he's a blatant bait poster. Seriously not even worth the effort.

On topic - Warren is making a major push to be the candidate people pick because she's the best candidate, not because she's necessarily the best candidate to beat Trump. I find that whole conversation highly interesting.

[Fugus]

Just ignore him - he's a blatant bait poster. Seriously not even worth the effort.

On topic - Warren is making a major push to be the candidate people pick because she's the best candidate, not because she's necessarily the best candidate to beat Trump. I find that whole conversation highly interesting.

I wish her well, she and Sanders are the big 2 that I would like as their policies generally are the best and make the best sense, at least on the domestic stuff, I am not educated enough on the international stuff to really have too much of an opinion on.

[Doctor Amadeus]

My wife and I are having some interesting conversations, for the first time in awhile, about the Democratic primary election. The conversation boils down to whether we should pick the person best suited to beat Trump, or whether we should pick the person best suited to be President. I'm for the best to beat Trump, she is the other side. I haven't been doing very well in the conversations, even though I believe that defeating Trump should be the primary goal of the 2020 Democratic nominee.

In case you're wondering, "why can't it be both" doesn't go very far. The issue is if they are in conflict (beating Trump vs best for President).

Who are your top 3 or 4 so far and who do you think would be a good VP?

I like

Joe Biden
Elizabeth Warren
Pete Buttigieg
Bernie Sanders

VP
Kristen Gillibrand

[cubby]

I wish her well, she and Sanders are the big 2 that I would like as their policies generally are the best and make the best sense, at least on the domestic stuff, I am not educated enough on the international stuff to really have too much of an opinion on.

I like Warren a lot, and she would make a good President. I am unfortunately in the camp of backing the person best suiting to beating Trump. IMHO that takes precedence, at this point in time, over the best person for actually being President. Frankly, all of the Democrats that have a legitimate chance at getting the nomination will make good President's. This isn't 2008, where the Democratic Primary winner will win the election. We don't have that luxury right now.

- - - Updated - - -

Who are your top 3 or 4 so far and who do you think would be a good VP?

My ideal ticket right now is Biden/Harris. I don't have a close second. I really like Buttigeig but I'm not sure where are still ready for an openly gay Pres/VP at this point. I wish we were, but there is some serious healing that needs to happen first.

In my mind, I see Biden getting us set straight and fixing all the shit Trump did, getting the Reconciliation Commission going (if that requires Exec Power at some point in the process), minding the prosecution of most/all the Trump family and friends, and then teeing up the Oval Office for the first Woman President of the United States, Kamala Harris. Biden might even have the nobility of serving just one term.

I would want Warren to have a place in the Administration, but she might do really well by remaining a senior Senator. I'm not sure which cabinet post would fit her style and policies the best.

I would put Mayor Pete in a major cabinet post or get him in a national office and tee him up down the road.

What about you?

[Doctor Amadeus]

I like Warren a lot, and she would make a good President. I am unfortunately in the camp of backing the person best suiting to beating Trump. IMHO that takes precedence, at this point in time, over the best person for actually being President. Frankly, all of the Democrats that have a legitimate chance at getting the nomination will make good President's. This isn't 2008, where the Democratic Primary winner will win the election. We don't have that luxury right now.

- - - Updated - - -



My ideal ticket right now is Biden/Harris. I don't have a close second. I really like Buttigeig but I'm not sure where are still ready for an openly gay Pres/VP at this point. I wish we were, but there is some serious healing that needs to happen first.

In my mind, I see Biden getting us set straight and fixing all the shit Trump did, getting the Reconciliation Commission going (if that requires Exec Power at some point in the process), minding the prosecution of most/all the Trump family and friends, and then teeing up the Oval Office for the first Woman President of the United States, Kamala Harris. Biden might even have the nobility of serving just one term.

I would want Warren to have a place in the Administration, but she might do really well by remaining a senior Senator. I'm not sure which cabinet post would fit her style and policies the best.

What about you?

Joe Biden
Elizabeth Warren
Pete Buttigieg
Bernie Sanders

VP
Kristen Gillibrand



I agree with you about Buttigieg, I was ashamed it took me so long to recognize him. Looking at his website and his position on the issues, I might have been more enthusiastic about him sooner. I am not a fan of Bernie specifically, but It's hard to deny his appeal.


I think Harris is a bit too young but she has a bright future. VP might be alright but she is vulnerable. She has to do better.


Biden/Gillibrand
Warren/Buttigieg

Would be my top 2.

[Fugus]

I like Warren a lot, and she would make a good President. I am unfortunately in the camp of backing the person best suiting to beating Trump. IMHO that takes precedence, at this point in time, over the best person for actually being President. Frankly, all of the Democrats that have a legitimate chance at getting the nomination will make good President's. This isn't 2008, where the Democratic Primary winner will win the election. We don't have that luxury right now.

The way I personally see it,

When you look at their policies (Sanders and Warren), they have MASSIVE overlap which has them eating each others numbers in the polls basically entirely. When you take that into account and combine them, they basically become the number 1 spot with Biden pretty much coasting on name recognition alone and from what I can tell, generally just wants to eat his own feet whenever he is public for too long.

If either Sanders or Warren drops out before the actual election starts, the other basically rockets to the number one spot, doubly so if they take the other as their VP.

By comparison, Biden in the past few years actually did an interview on CSPAN where he actively talks about cutting medicare and social security. If he makes it into the general, he will be given countless times to keep eating his feet, the Republicans will go over his history with a fine tooth comb while lying about countless other things and you will see his CSPAN footage wall to wall till the election day. I honestly see him as Trumps best chance of re-election out of the current candidates polling for anything in the primary.

I am not sure who is best suited to beat Trump, but it isn't Biden.


Edit: Off to bed, later man.

[cubby]

Joe Biden
Elizabeth Warren
Pete Buttigieg
Bernie Sanders

VP
Kristen Gillibrand



I agree with you about Buttigieg, I was ashamed it took me so long to recognize him. Looking at his website and his position on the issues, I might have been more enthusiastic about him sooner. I am not a fan of Bernie specifically, but It's hard to deny his appeal.


I think Harris is a bit too young but she has a bright future. VP might be alright but she is vulnerable. She has to do better.


Biden/Gillibrand
Warren/Buttigieg

Would be my top 2.

For me Sanders should bow out. Regardless of 2016, he looks crazy, and people on the fence aren't going to vote for crazy. He should channel all his popularity directly into the eventual winner of the Primary, and not try too hard until then.

Kristen Gillibrand seems great but she doesn't have a lot of national recognition. I could see her as a possible VP choice, however, and put Harris in reserve for later. We have so much racism and sexism to overcome in this country. I fear that trying to kill it all at once might backfire. Not sure if that makes sense.

I agree about Harris' vulnerability. I think as VP she could overcome it. She could also just sit on her but in CA for awhile longer and wait for another shot down the line. Another thing I am concerned about, assuming saner minds prevail in 2020 and we start moving towards healing this country, is a Dem ticket of all women. My wife would kick my sorry ass for ever saying that, but I like the idea of a female/male ticket - with female being President, no problem. I'm sure that also sounds awful, and might not make much sense - comes from my years of partner debating.

- - - Updated - - -

The way I personally see it,

When you look at their policies (Sanders and Warren), they have MASSIVE overlap which has them eating each others numbers in the polls basically entirely. When you take that into account and combine them, they basically become the number 1 spot with Biden pretty much coasting on name recognition alone and from what I can tell, generally just wants to eat his own feet whenever he is public for too long.

If either Sanders or Warren drops out before the actual election starts, the other basically rockets to the number one spot, doubly so if they take the other as their VP.

By comparison, Biden in the past few years actually did an interview on CSPAN where he actively talks about cutting medicare and social security. If he makes it into the general, he will be given countless times to keep eating his feet, the Republicans will go over his history with a fine tooth comb while lying about countless other things and you will see his CSPAN footage wall to wall till the election day. I honestly see him as Trumps best chance of re-election out of the current candidates polling for anything in the primary.

I am not sure who is best suited to beat Trump, but it isn't Biden.

That's an interesting theory on Sanders/Warren. I'm really against Sanders running again. But Warren if a very attractive candidate, on a number of issues and fronts. I don't want to see Sanders on the ticket, period. Too old and too crazy looking.

I would like to see that Biden CSPAN interview - I hate to say it but I hadn't heard about it.

The GOP and more specifically Trump are going to roll out nick names and shit talking with whomever gets the Democratic nod. What they have on Biden is ALL they have on Biden, makes me wonder how really afraid they are of him. Sanders hasn't really received many attacks from the Trump Train - which actually has me worried. Warren has also received about all they can dish out - nothing new about her (which is a good thing).

I disagree though - IMO Biden is the guy to beat Trump.

[Doctor Amadeus]

For me Sanders should bow out. Regardless of 2016, he looks crazy, and people on the fence aren't going to vote for crazy. He should channel all his popularity directly into the eventual winner of the Primary, and not try too hard until then.

Kristen Gillibrand seems great but she doesn't have a lot of national recognition. I could see her as a possible VP choice, however, and put Harris in reserve for later. We have so much racism and sexism to overcome in this country. I fear that trying to kill it all at once might backfire. Not sure if that makes sense.

I agree about Harris' vulnerability. I think as VP she could overcome it. She could also just sit on her but in CA for awhile longer and wait for another shot down the line. Another thing I am concerned about, assuming saner minds prevail in 2020 and we start moving towards healing this country, is a Dem ticket of all women. My wife would kick my sorry ass for ever saying that, but I like the idea of a female/male ticket - with female being President, no problem. I'm sure that also sounds awful, and might not make much sense - comes from my years of partner debating.

Again I am not a fan of Bernie but as I said it's hard to not admit I like what he says.

That being said, I know better and the smart choice I am in agreement with you on either Biden or Warren. I also agree any woman or POC running or Gay is going to be a target, that being said, I do believe those I have seen rise are all capable of beating Trump. That said I do want someone aggressive and isn't going to be intimidated by Trump, Joe Biden I know wouldn't.

All in all the best two I see for a ticket are

Biden/Gillibrand
Warren/Buttigieg

I will say this, I DO love the wide variety of options in the debates but I have to admit, I really really would like to see some the some bow out and the next debate with less candidates given more time to answer questions. Not a lot of time for any meat in any of these debates.

[cubby]

Again I am not a fan of Bernie but as I said it's hard to not admit I like what he says.

Agreed. I do like what he says.

That being said, I know better and the smart choice I am in agreement with you on either Biden or Warren. I also agree any woman or POC running or Gay is going to be a target, that being said, I do believe those I have seen rise are all capable of beating Trump. That said I do want someone aggressive and isn't going to be intimidated by Trump, Joe Biden I know wouldn't.

I think that's it for me re Biden - he wouldn't be intimidated or pushed around by Trump. Cheeto is such a misogynistic asshole that eats women from breakfast whenever he appears next to them - somehow marginalizes even the most powerful people. Biden has the brains and the presence to take Trump down each and every time they met, and he would look strong doing it. I will be the first to agree that those reasons are not the best reasons for choosing a President, but IMO they are the best reasons for picking the person best suited for defeating Trump.

All in all the best two I see for a ticket are

Biden/Gillibrand
Warren/Buttigieg

I could definitely get behind Biden/Gillibrand. The other ticket is too far-left/liberal, even if it's only a visual rather than politic optic (if that makes sense).

I will say this, I DO love the wide variety of options in the debates but I have to admit, I really really would like to see some the some bow out and the next debate with less candidates given more time to answer questions. Not a lot of time for any meat in any of these debates.

Agreed - I hope they pare down to the strongest 5-7 and start in with some real debates. But we need to make sure that those remaining don't take each other down. We don't need to gin up new ammo for the GOP.

[Fugus]

That's an interesting theory on Sanders/Warren. I'm really against Sanders running again. But Warren if a very attractive candidate, on a number of issues and fronts. I don't want to see Sanders on the ticket, period. Too old and too crazy looking.

I would like to see that Biden CSPAN interview - I hate to say it but I hadn't heard about it.

The GOP and more specifically Trump are going to roll out nick names and shit talking with whomever gets the Democratic nod. What they have on Biden is ALL they have on Biden, makes me wonder how really afraid they are of him. Sanders hasn't really received many attacks from the Trump Train - which actually has me worried. Warren has also received about all they can dish out - nothing new about her (which is a good thing).

I disagree though - IMO Biden is the guy to beat Trump.

Literally caught me right before i was about to turn off the PC, lol.

But the Sanders/Warren, could be wrong about them on the same ticket for those outside of their actual base but the fact is there is massive overlap in their supporters as they basically have massive overlap in their policies and Sanders effectively pushing the narrative into this election season with all he has done over the last few years making it were Warren is more willing to run (Along with the blood in the water they see with Trump).

Can see the too crazy looking thing myself, but the too old part the same can be said for Biden and unlike Biden, Sanders has actual footage of him actually being able to still run. But Sanders always looked like chronic bedhead so can't really say much about that but again, I am a supporter of his for a while now, so outside looking in, it could turn off many who just see him.

With the CSPAN thing, I have seen it maybe twice, one actual footage of it but when I tried looking for it again to link, all I could find was a TYT thing where they had it recorded. Haven't looked for months now but I remember it. He was actually actively talking about "Cutting Medicare and Social Security to save it" and seemed dead set on it. Seeing that made me know he sunk himself because there is no way it will remain buried in a general election and his support will wither and die after that and will effectively turn into hoping enough people vote "Not Trump" to get him elected like what Clinton tried to do.

As far as the Trump nicknames, we all know he will do that stuff, all they got to do is ignore it and stay on policy and he is sunk and start pointing out when he lies while actually calling it lies and when he does point out how he is trying to change the subject and keep it on topic and he is done. I have a brother in law who tries the same thing when he is debating and is losing, keep them on topic and they basically come off to everyone but themselves as the loser.

All the need on Biden is that CSPAN interview and the lie train they will bring out. And honestly, how much of Biden's support do you really think is based on his policies versus his name recognition and association to Obama?

Sanders, I think he could whether the Trump attacks pretty well, especially in a debate as he actually has his record to back him up and a history of practicing what he preaches.

As i said, I don't know WHO is the guy to beat Trump, but I don't see it as Biden, he is Trumps best chance due to HOW he is popular right now combined with his CSPAN interview, combined with his knack for screwing up in public. It seems like that the general would turn into him turning people off and hoping the "Not Trump" votes would get him over the hump because the "For Biden" votes might not be enough.

[Xeones]

So at a time when Trump is talking about race, the border, and other things that just don't really matter all that much why are democrats falling into his pace in their own debates and talking about the same shit instead of stuff that matters?

[Skroe]

I'd really like to see Joe Biden as the Presidential Candidate and Stacy Abrams has the VP candidate. I think it's the tactically smart move from many angles if she's used right.

First, let's be clear - election experts maintain that people never vote with the Vice Presidential candidate first in their mind. Nobody voted for Bush while thinking "Cheney is gonna be VP!" or Biden like that with Obama, or Gore like that with Clinton It's not a thing. What VP candidates do do is open up coalition options within the party, open up states on the map, and push fence sitters over.


So why is Stacy Abrams the best choice?

First and foremost, she could make Georgia a swing state for 2020. Even if Democrats don't win it, her being on the ballot makes it very competitive and the Trump campaign would have to invest time and resources to not narrowly lose it. If Trump were to lose Georgia, it would be impossible to win unless he took Virginia or Colorado.

Secondly, she's extremely popular with African Americans (a core democrat constituency), women and progressives... the latter two in a way Hillary Clinton never was. She represents the face of the future party. She could rally Suburban women and African Americans in places like Pittsburgh and Philidelphia (and their suburbs) and Detroit.

Thirdly she is from the South. She grew up in Mississippi and Georgia. She could appeal to Southern voters, particularly minorities and women, in Florida (particularly north Florida). There has been Republican erosion in the South and West, and she could push that along.


She's the anti-Tim Kaine. I get why Hillary chose Tim Kaine (white male, appeal to working class), but it was a 1990s political reading in in the wrong election with the wrong person. Joe Biden should select her, and have her basically be his uber-surrogate in Georgia, Florida, North Carolina and urban Pennsylvania. He should be "the man" in centra PA, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado and Arizona.

Do that, and the map created for Donald Trump is very complicated.

[Fugus]

So at a time when Trump is talking about race, the border, and other things that just don't really matter all that much why are democrats falling into his pace in their own debates and talking about the same shit instead of stuff that matters?

If I had to guess, it is because they don't want to actually fix them because they make for good wedge issues and they know they might have enough power to implement them after the next election and because they are paid to avoid fixing them and generally be weak.

Edit:

Alright, NOW I am going to bed, later guys.

And skroe, thanks again for that link. Makes the page SO much more readable if only I could do something about responses to them.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I'd really like to see Joe Biden as the Presidential Candidate and Stacy Abrams has the VP candidate. I think it's the tactically smart move from many angles if she's used right.

First, let's be clear - election experts maintain that people never vote with the Vice Presidential candidate first in their mind. Nobody voted for Bush while thinking "Cheney is gonna be VP!" or Biden like that with Obama, or Gore like that with Clinton It's not a thing. What VP candidates do do is open up coalition options within the party, open up states on the map, and push fence sitters over.


So why is Stacy Abrams the best choice?

First and foremost, she could make Georgia a swing state for 2020. Even if Democrats don't win it, her being on the ballot makes it very competitive and the Trump campaign would have to invest time and resources to not narrowly lose it. If Trump were to lose Georgia, it would be impossible to win unless he took Virginia or Colorado.

Secondly, she's extremely popular with African Americans (a core democrat constituency), women and progressives... the latter two in a way Hillary Clinton never was. She represents the face of the future party. She could rally Suburban women and African Americans in places like Pittsburgh and Philidelphia (and their suburbs) and Detroit.

Thirdly she is from the South. She grew up in Mississippi and Georgia. She could appeal to Southern voters, particularly minorities and women, in Florida (particularly north Florida). There has been Republican erosion in the South and West, and she could push that along.


She's the anti-Tim Kaine. I get why Hillary chose Tim Kaine (white male, appeal to working class), but it was a 1990s political reading in in the wrong election with the wrong person. Joe Biden should select her, and have her basically be his uber-surrogate in Georgia, Florida, North Carolina and urban Pennsylvania. He should be "the man" in centra PA, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado and Arizona.

Do that, and the map created for Donald Trump is very complicated.

Eh normally your reasoning is air tight, but Stacy Abrams?

I mean granted she did well in her run, but I am not sure I see her appeal over Andrew Gillum from Florida who came close to becoming Floridas first black Governor. Maybe I am missing the wisdom of your strategy here, but I think Stacy Abrams would be an odd choice.

What about Beto?

[cubby]

I'd really like to see Joe Biden as the Presidential Candidate and Stacy Abrams has the VP candidate. I think it's the tactically smart move from many angles if she's used right.

First, let's be clear - election experts maintain that people never vote with the Vice Presidential candidate first in their mind. Nobody voted for Bush while thinking "Cheney is gonna be VP!" or Biden like that with Obama, or Gore like that with Clinton It's not a thing. What VP candidates do do is open up coalition options within the party, open up states on the map, and push fence sitters over.


So why is Stacy Abrams the best choice?

First and foremost, she could make Georgia a swing state for 2020. Even if Democrats don't win it, her being on the ballot makes it very competitive and the Trump campaign would have to invest time and resources to not narrowly lose it. If Trump were to lose Georgia, it would be impossible to win unless he took Virginia or Colorado.

Secondly, she's extremely popular with African Americans (a core democrat constituency), women and progressives... the latter two in a way Hillary Clinton never was. She represents the face of the future party. She could rally Suburban women and African Americans in places like Pittsburgh and Philidelphia (and their suburbs) and Detroit.

Thirdly she is from the South. She grew up in Mississippi and Georgia. She could appeal to Southern voters, particularly minorities and women, in Florida (particularly north Florida). There has been Republican erosion in the South and West, and she could push that along.


She's the anti-Tim Kaine. I get why Hillary chose Tim Kaine (white male, appeal to working class), but it was a 1990s political reading in in the wrong election with the wrong person. Joe Biden should select her, and have her basically be his uber-surrogate in Georgia, Florida, North Carolina and urban Pennsylvania. He should be "the man" in centra PA, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado and Arizona.

Do that, and the map created for Donald Trump is very complicated.

...! Well, shit, yeah - that would definitely give the entire GOP cause for crapping their pants.

It would make a number of states that were GOP locks into possible close-calls. And it would certainly bring out a lot of "modern" enthusiasm that Biden wouldn't necessarily get on his own.

Is anyone in the Dem power circles suggesting this or are we seeing any signs of her nomination for VP being taken seriously?

[Skroe]

My wife and I are having some interesting conversations, for the first time in awhile, about the Democratic primary election. The conversation boils down to whether we should pick the person best suited to beat Trump, or whether we should pick the person best suited to be President. I'm for the best to beat Trump, she is the other side. I haven't been doing very well in the conversations, even though I believe that defeating Trump should be the primary goal of the 2020 Democratic nominee.

In case you're wondering, "why can't it be both" doesn't go very far. The issue is if they are in conflict (beating Trump vs best for President).

I mean this is the central debate of the election.

Personally, I think it's a no brainer: if Donald Trump is prevented from recreating what is likely fluke state electoral wins in 2016, he will be prevented from having a second term. Full stops.

That's why the strategy should be:
(1) Lock down Wisconsin (especially Wisconsin), Michigan and Pennsylvania.
(2) Keep an eye on Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado to make sure Trump doesn't ninja one of them.
(3) Move Heaven and Earth to win Arizona, and create havoc in Florida for Republicans (and make Republicans spend a lot of resources here).
(4) Do whatever you can in North Carolina and Ohio, but don't over invest.

So who is best for doing that on the field? I think it's self evident it is Biden. He would win (1), (2), (3) and make a strong play for NC. He of the entire field, has the best chance of winning Florida. Trump requires Florida. If Trump loses Florida, it's over.

->Warren cannot in PA and would struggle in Wisconsin. She would have a hard time in Virginia and Colorado. And you could forget Florida and Arizona.

-> Sanders would struggle in Virginia and Colorado, and probably Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. He would move Florida to be for Trump and Arizona and NC out of reach.

-> Harris would find it difficult to win Pennsylvania, Colorado and Florida. She's probably be okay in Florida. North Carolina a big maybe. Forget Arizona.

I think it comes down to the fact that you either consider another term for Trump an epochal threat to America's future, or just "another Republican President". If it is the latter, then choosing the best person to being President is sensible because you've decided the consequences of being wrong are low. I however, think the consequences of Trump winning again would be catastrophic to the United States. This is Stage IV Cancer, not a skin rash. So getting him out is what matter most.

Besides, as I have said many times, it's not like the next Democratic President will have more power to do anything than Trump did. Moscow Mitch will block them at every turn until the day they die, and beyond that, the 2 year deal budget model pretty much makes "big ideas" a non starter.

I wish we had some kind of viewer to look into parallel dimensions, to see the one where President Sanders "caved" on Medicare For All in favor of some kind of Presidential comission to study it, in order to pass an 11th hour budget deal. Because that's exactly what would happen, because it's entirely logical for Congressmen and Senators to place their districts and States first.

M4A will occur when there is a national political consensus and, moreover, the Democratic Stars aline - a Democratic House, a Democratic 60 vote Majority, and a progressive President to sign it. And not one minute before.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Agreed. I do like what he says.




I think that's it for me re Biden - he wouldn't be intimidated or pushed around by Trump. Cheeto is such a misogynistic asshole that eats women from breakfast whenever he appears next to them - somehow marginalizes even the most powerful people. Biden has the brains and the presence to take Trump down each and every time they met, and he would look strong doing it. I will be the first to agree that those reasons are not the best reasons for choosing a President, but IMO they are the best reasons for picking the person best suited for defeating Trump.




I could definitely get behind Biden/Gillibrand. The other ticket is too far-left/liberal, even if it's only a visual rather than politic optic (if that makes sense).





Agreed - I hope they pare down to the strongest 5-7 and start in with some real debates. But we need to make sure that those remaining don't take each other down. We don't need to gin up new ammo for the GOP.

Yeah I am agreeing with you on your line of thinking and reasons over all. For me the way I look at it is as I always have. First I vote with my passion and hart, but then I also follow that with my brain and logic. I don't want to do anything and everything to win, I am not ok with selling out, but I am also aware that this is about who is the best to run this country as President even if I do NOT like them.

I think one of the biggest mistakes when voting on anything especially for the Executive Position for the United States. It shouldn't be about like it should be about the best and most qualified. Because as human beings we all have flaws and we have a long history of human beings that served the branch.

But we never had anyone this moronic and stupid and dangerous.

So as I said I would vote for anybody but Trump. However who can run and win is important a close second to who is the most qualified.



So going forward I am going to part further from who I like rather than who is the most qualified and capable of winning.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean this is the central debate of the election.

Personally, I think it's a no brainer: if Donald Trump is prevented from recreating what is likely fluke state electoral wins in 2016, he will be prevented from having a second term. Full stops.

That's why the strategy should be:
(1) Lock down Wisconsin (especially Wisconsin), Michigan and Pennsylvania.
(2) Keep an eye on Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado to make sure Trump doesn't ninja one of them.
(3) Move Heaven and Earth to win Arizona, and create havoc in Florida for Republicans (and make Republicans spend a lot of resources here).
(4) Do whatever you can in North Carolina and Ohio, but don't over invest.

So who is best for doing that on the field? I think it's self evident it is Biden. He would win (1), (2), (3) and make a strong play for NC. He of the entire field, has the best chance of winning Florida. Trump requires Florida. If Trump loses Florida, it's over.

->Warren cannot in PA and would struggle in Wisconsin. She would have a hard time in Virginia and Colorado. And you could forget Florida and Arizona.

-> Sanders would struggle in Virginia and Colorado, and probably Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. He would move Florida to be for Trump and Arizona and NC out of reach.

-> Harris would find it difficult to win Pennsylvania, Colorado and Florida. She's probably be okay in Florida. North Carolina a big maybe. Forget Arizona.

I think it comes down to the fact that you either consider another term for Trump an epochal threat to America's future, or just "another Republican President". If it is the latter, then choosing the best person to being President is sensible because you've decided the consequences of being wrong are low. I however, think the consequences of Trump winning again would be catastrophic to the United States. This is Stage IV Cancer, not a skin rash. So getting him out is what matter most.

Besides, as I have said many times, it's not like the next Democratic President will have more power to do anything than Trump did. Moscow Mitch will block them at every turn until the day they die, and beyond that, the 2 year deal budget model pretty much makes "big ideas" a non starter.

I wish we had some kind of viewer to look into parallel dimensions, to see the one where President Sanders "caved" on Medicare For All in favor of some kind of Presidential comission to study it, in order to pass an 11th hour budget deal. Because that's exactly what would happen, because it's entirely logical for Congressmen and Senators to place their districts and States first.

M4A will occur when there is a national political consensus and, moreover, the Democratic Stars aline - a Democratic House, a Democratic 60 vote Majority, and a progressive President to sign it. And not one minute before.

Yeah, that is another reason I am behind Joe Biden, again he isn't a perfect human being, but in terms of experience and proven track record.

I do have question for you in all this how do you think Trump is going to fair with Farmers, and can that be used in some way to turn voters away from Trump since this Trade War bullshit?

I am thinking Trade Wars, Cracking Down on Cheap labor (No Pathway to citizenship) and Failed Promises to protect Obamacare or fix it will be a pretty strong motivator.

[cubby]

I mean this is the central debate of the election.

Personally, I think it's a no brainer: if Donald Trump is prevented from recreating what is likely fluke state electoral wins in 2016, he will be prevented from having a second term. Full stops.

That's why the strategy should be:
(1) Lock down Wisconsin (especially Wisconsin), Michigan and Pennsylvania.
(2) Keep an eye on Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado to make sure Trump doesn't ninja one of them.
(3) Move Heaven and Earth to win Arizona, and create havoc in Florida for Republicans (and make Republicans spend a lot of resources here).
(4) Do whatever you can in North Carolina and Ohio, but don't over invest.

So who is best for doing that on the field? I think it's self evident it is Biden. He would win (1), (2), (3) and make a strong play for NC. He of the entire field, has the best chance of winning Florida. Trump requires Florida. If Trump loses Florida, it's over.

->Warren cannot in PA and would struggle in Wisconsin. She would have a hard time in Virginia and Colorado. And you could forget Florida and Arizona.

-> Sanders would struggle in Virginia and Colorado, and probably Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. He would move Florida to be for Trump and Arizona and NC out of reach.

-> Harris would find it difficult to win Pennsylvania, Colorado and Florida. She's probably be okay in Florida. North Carolina a big maybe. Forget Arizona.

So Biden would keep the states that the Dems need to win, and push some that Trump might otherwise count as "his". While Abrams on the ticket would make the entire south a fingers-in-the-dam situation for the GOP. And bringing Georgia into play would scare everyone. The more I think aobut Abrams as the VP the more I like it. She's already been OP-Prep'd by Georgia's GOP and they had to literally cheat to beat here there. Plus, she would be so exciting to the Democratic base, something we never saw in Clinton/Kaine. IMO, getting that Obama-energy is central to keeping the momentum against Trump strong all the way to the finish.

I think it comes down to the fact that you either consider another term for Trump an epochal threat to America's future, or just "another Republican President". If it is the latter, then choosing the best person to being President is sensible because you've decided the consequences of being wrong are low. I however, think the consequences of Trump winning again would be catastrophic to the United States. This is Stage IV Cancer, not a skin rash. So getting him out is what matter most.

I've been having this argument with my wife of late - we usually agree on politics on almost all issues. I want to win - period. She insists the best candidate for the job is the priority.

Besides, as I have said many times, it's not like the next Democratic President will have more power to do anything than Trump did. Moscow Mitch will block them at every turn until the day they die, and beyond that, the 2 year deal budget model pretty much makes "big ideas" a non starter.

I wish we had some kind of viewer to look into parallel dimensions, to see the one where President Sanders "caved" on Medicare For All in favor of some kind of Presidential comission to study it, in order to pass an 11th hour budget deal. Because that's exactly what would happen, because it's entirely logical for Congressmen and Senators to place their districts and States first.

M4A will occur when there is a national political consensus and, moreover, the Democratic Stars aline - a Democratic House, a Democratic 60 vote Majority, and a progressive President to sign it. And not one minute before.

You don't think the Dem's will take the Senate? Even with a 2020 version of the Pink/Blue wave?

[PACOX]