The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread, Part 3

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Harris was in Iowa today stumping for Democrats and the crowds were quite impressive for a candidate this early in the stage...

https://twitter.com/ZachWahls/status/1054830482314137600

https://twitter.com/caseytolan/status/1054830090188742656

Please don't tell me it's rigged again?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Haven't seen this in the 2020 board:

Last Friday, Steve Bullock was on Morning Joe and talked about the bad influence of money in politics and about showing up in rural areas to make up ground for Democrats. Still declined to answer whether he'll run: Video

The guy comes over as likeable, has definitely a message and a strategy how to win.

That seems like a good thing. Him running for the nomination (he won't win) could be a good thing, because at least he would make sure that some rural voters have something to talk about (very few though), but putting his name out there, and what he stands for is never a bad thing i guess. I just wouldn't name him a "strong candidate" necessarily (yet).

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Wow, i like Buttigieg.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Bernie and Warren met and both are probably running.

Warren should bow out of the race and endorse Sanders, so the Progressive wing of the party is united behind one candidate. The Pocahontas smear combined with her embarrassing DNA test shows she would be torn apart by Trump, plus Sanders has a much more enthusiastic base and a much more authentic message (before Sanders ran, Single-Payer healthcare, Free College, and a Living Wage were viewed as fringe positions by most Democrats) as shown by the fact that every other potential candidate is imitating his platform, even those that clearly don’t support it (ie. Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, and Beto). This proves Sanders is the candidate that Progressives should unite behind to win the nomination and throw Trump out of the White House.

Even if Warren endorsed him, Sanders still wouldn't win the nomination. I would expect Clinton level shenanigans from the other candidates (like refusing to attend debates he is invited to) if he runs.

The Clinton level shenanigans is exactly the reason why she lost.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Bernie and Warren met and both are probably running.

Warren should bow out of the race and endorse Sanders, so the Progressive wing of the party is united behind one candidate. The Pocahontas smear combined with her embarrassing DNA test shows she would be torn apart by Trump, plus Sanders has a much more enthusiastic base and a much more authentic message (before Sanders ran, Single-Payer healthcare, Free College, and a Living Wage were viewed as fringe positions by most Democrats) as shown by the fact that every other potential candidate is imitating his platform, even those that clearly don’t support it (ie. Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, and Beto). This proves Sanders is the candidate that Progressives should unite behind to win the nomination and throw Trump out of the White House.

Even if Warren endorsed him, Sanders still wouldn't win the nomination. I would expect Clinton level shenanigans from the other candidates (like refusing to attend debates he is invited to) if he runs.

The Clinton level shenanigans is exactly the reason why she lost.

She lost because she had flaws that were unique to her as a candidate (Whitewater, helping cover up Bill's sexual indiscretions, email scandal) not because of any particular strength of a proposed Sanders candidacy.

Without Bernie Sanders, i would've been probably a Clinton supporter as i initially was, and i even preferred Trump over her on election day, because i was so done with all the shenanigance / rigging process.

No-one cares about the e-mails, except Trump trolls, and i don't even know what Whitewater is. But the Sanders / and rigged primaries weren't the only reason that she lost (and Wikileaks didn't help Trump, she should have been made clear that Wikileaks had never something to leak about her, Assange is a hero). Her arrogant and naive campaign is part of the reason why she lost as well. She was never able to connect with the average person, and while some reluctantly went for her, it wasn't enough to make up for the Trump enthusiasm surge on election day, especially in the Rust Belt which might be more prone to voting for populist candidates (as Ventura proved in 1998 in MN already).

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Bernie and Warren met and both are probably running.

Warren should bow out of the race and endorse Sanders, so the Progressive wing of the party is united behind one candidate. The Pocahontas smear combined with her embarrassing DNA test shows she would be torn apart by Trump, plus Sanders has a much more enthusiastic base and a much more authentic message (before Sanders ran, Single-Payer healthcare, Free College, and a Living Wage were viewed as fringe positions by most Democrats) as shown by the fact that every other potential candidate is imitating his platform, even those that clearly don’t support it (ie. Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, and Beto). This proves Sanders is the candidate that Progressives should unite behind to win the nomination and throw Trump out of the White House.

Even if Warren endorsed him, Sanders still wouldn't win the nomination. I would expect Clinton level shenanigans from the other candidates (like refusing to attend debates he is invited to) if he runs.

The Clinton level shenanigans is exactly the reason why she lost.

She lost because she had flaws that were unique to her as a candidate (Whitewater, helping cover up Bill's sexual indiscretions, email scandal) not because of any particular strength of a proposed Sanders candidacy.

Without Bernie Sanders, i would've been probably a Clinton supporter as i initially was, and i even preferred Trump over her on election day, because i was so done with all the shenanigance / rigging process.

No-one cares about the e-mails, except Trump trolls, and i don't even know what Whitewater is. But the Sanders / and rigged primaries weren't the only reason that she lost (and Wikileaks didn't help Trump, she should have been made clear that Wikileaks had never something to leak about her, Assange is a hero). Her arrogant and naive campaign is part of the reason why she lost as well. She was never able to connect with the average person, and while some reluctantly went for her, it wasn't enough to make up for the Trump enthusiasm surge on election day, especially in the Rust Belt which might be more prone to voting for populist candidates (as Ventura proved in 1998 in MN already).

The fact that you preferred Donald Trump over Hillary when you identify as a socialist is mind boggling.That is just so illogical from a policy standpoint.

First of all, the primaries were not "rigged". Yes there were fewer debates, and maybe there should have been more, but that does not constitute "rigging". For one, the rules of the debates were decided in 2014, far before anyone knew the race would be Sanders v. Clinton. Also, Bernie Sanders was extremely well known among Democratic voters by the time voting was in swing. Democrats knew what his message was (as he was excellent at staying on message) they just chose not to vote for him by a significant margin.

The claim that Assange is a hero is straight up laughable. Yes he leaked some things back in the day in the interest of transparency, as opposed to present day leaking of innocent people's social security numbers, addresses, and phone numbers. But Wikileaks' goal this election was purely focused on sowing divide and discord in the American electorate. Hell, they were even encouraging Trump not to concede as it would be "far more interesting" in their DM's to Don Jr. They also refused to leak any damaging info on Trump and solely focused on Clinton as they believed she would win and wanted to hurt her as much as possible before she became President. Wikileaks provided absolutely no value by leaking PRIVATE emails from John Podesta. People do have a right to privacy, and there's no reason the American people needed to see those--completely uninteresting and irrelevant--emails.

Yes Clinton's campaign was arrogant and it is largely the campaign's failure to get out ahead of scandals and present a clear and simplified message to the American people that cost them the election, but let's not act like she wasn't subject to unprecedented attacks from a foreign government. And pretending that as a socialist, Trump at all served your interests any better is laughable.  

I'm sorry and I already know I was wrong there, but as a socialist you can't support both Trump and Clinton. Preferring Trump over Clinton in 2016 was a mistake (i did it back than, but i don't anymore), but I can't help it that Clinton wasn't a president for the WWC. Trump at least could have became a WWC president, but he turned out not to be. And I might live in Belgium, but i'm sure tons of people in the Rust Belt thought about it the same way as i did. You can't blame me for not supporting HRC after that terrible primary process.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

https://twitter.com/KateNocera/status/1074764504104345600

Could happen as she will likely try to announce before Warren or Sanders does.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

https://twitter.com/KateNocera/status/1074764504104345600

God help us.

Also, if Buttigieg runs I'd be really torn. On the one hand, I'd prefer he wins higher office like Governor or Congress before running. On the other hand, I think he'd make an amazing President after what he did in South Bend, and considering how hard it'd be for a Democrat to win Indiana, this might just be the right time. I'd probably be torn between Pete, Kirsten Gillibrand and Beto O'Rourke.

He should run to raise name awareness, and maybe be included in cabinet or as a possible VP candidate. (he would be an excellent pick for Kamala).