Steve Bullock is the guy for 2020.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:46:27 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Steve Bullock is the guy for 2020.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Steve Bullock is the guy for 2020.  (Read 3527 times)
McGovernForPrez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2017, 12:15:55 PM »

The Dems need to fix their problem with white men, Steve bullock is good for the job, but Seth Moulton could be better. We need a Vet at the top of the ticket in my opinion
God no. I'm sick of the Seth Moulton hype.
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2017, 01:05:06 PM »

Bullock needs to run far to the economic left, that's how to offset issues on guns.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2017, 09:48:50 PM »

Sorry, white guys. He isn't winning the primary, assuming he runs.

If it's not possible for a white male to win the Democratic nomination for President, what does that say about the Democratic Party?
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 16, 2017, 01:38:34 PM »

Thanks to the original poster, these are exactly my points. I think that Steve Bullock is a very strong candidate and would also be a very good president. The Democrats should nominate him for the reasons already given in the first post. If Trump continues to be incompetent, what is almost certain, Bullock should be able to beat him easily. And if nominated, he needs a strong running mate from a blue state, female and/or minority, to turn out these voters. Kamala Harris, as a rising star energizing the base, who has also no baggage would be the ideal vice presidential nominee on his side. Both are fresh new faces and are not some 70 year old fellow who already ran for president.
Logged
Dr Oz Lost Party!
PittsburghSteel
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,933
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 16, 2017, 03:57:23 PM »

I get a migraine every time I see "Steve Bullock" in this forum.
Logged
McGovernForPrez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2017, 04:17:09 PM »

I get a migraine every time I see "Steve Bullock" in this forum.
Well get ready for a lot more migraines.
Logged
kyc0705
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,744


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 17, 2017, 10:21:03 AM »

I get a migraine every time I see "Steve Bullock" in this forum.

The Bullock worship on Atlas has crossed over to self-parody.
Logged
Coraxion
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 906
Ethiopia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 17, 2017, 10:33:11 AM »

Bullock is nowehere near as "conservative" or "moderate" as people here seem to believe he is, so his crossover appeal is extremely exaggerated. Another thing to keep in mind that Bullock running for president could very well result in him losing the nomination (extremely likely) and Steve Daines winning reelection to the Senate, so it would be a lose-lose situation for Democrats. Like I said before, Daines could lose to some other Democrat as well, but Bullock would be their best bet.

Yeah, but Bullock doesn't need to be conservative OR moderate to reach out to culturally moderate-to-conservative Obama-Trump voters.
That's not a winning strategy. Turning out the true base of the party, people of color, as well as consolidating the Romney-Clinton vote and Stein voters, is.
Logged
McGovernForPrez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 17, 2017, 11:21:55 AM »

Bullock is nowehere near as "conservative" or "moderate" as people here seem to believe he is, so his crossover appeal is extremely exaggerated. Another thing to keep in mind that Bullock running for president could very well result in him losing the nomination (extremely likely) and Steve Daines winning reelection to the Senate, so it would be a lose-lose situation for Democrats. Like I said before, Daines could lose to some other Democrat as well, but Bullock would be their best bet.

Yeah, but Bullock doesn't need to be conservative OR moderate to reach out to culturally moderate-to-conservative Obama-Trump voters.
That's not a winning strategy. Turning out the true base of the party, people of color, as well as consolidating the Romney-Clinton vote and Stein voters, is.
Turning out the base isn't enough when a lot of states don't have a large enough base to begin with. If we actually do manage to win with that strategy the margin will be incredibly narrow. Turning out the base is difficult and solidifying Romney Clinton voters is even more so. WWC is much more elastic. Plus it's antithesis to Democratic goals to become the party of moderate conservatism.
Logged
Webnicz
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 498
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 17, 2017, 11:33:14 AM »

The Dems need to fix their problem with white men, Steve bullock is good for the job, but Seth Moulton could be better. We need a Vet at the top of the ticket in my opinion
God no. I'm sick of the Seth Moulton hype.

I am just as sick of it as you are, mainly because if he runs nationally he would win.

Logged
Coraxion
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 906
Ethiopia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2017, 11:58:37 AM »

Bullock is nowehere near as "conservative" or "moderate" as people here seem to believe he is, so his crossover appeal is extremely exaggerated. Another thing to keep in mind that Bullock running for president could very well result in him losing the nomination (extremely likely) and Steve Daines winning reelection to the Senate, so it would be a lose-lose situation for Democrats. Like I said before, Daines could lose to some other Democrat as well, but Bullock would be their best bet.

Yeah, but Bullock doesn't need to be conservative OR moderate to reach out to culturally moderate-to-conservative Obama-Trump voters.
That's not a winning strategy. Turning out the true base of the party, people of color, as well as consolidating the Romney-Clinton vote and Stein voters, is.
Turning out the base isn't enough when a lot of states don't have a large enough base to begin with. If we actually do manage to win with that strategy the margin will be incredibly narrow. Turning out the base is difficult and solidifying Romney Clinton voters is even more so. WWC is much more elastic. Plus it's antithesis to Democratic goals to become the party of moderate conservatism.
"Muh WWC" is orgasmic for Trump. They aren't going to vote for any Democrat over him. Why? White identity politics. The Democrat would only win those voters if they railed against Mexicans and Muslims. On the other hand, Romney-Clinton voters don't have those attitudes and so wouldn't flip to Trump. Also, chasing the wild goose that is "muh WWC" is what would make us the party of moderate conservatism.

I'm very frustrated by alt-leftists seeking to undermine the Party's civil rights stances. If they get their way, we (minorities) won't have a voice in government because neither party would care about us.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2017, 12:03:27 PM »

Bullock is nowehere near as "conservative" or "moderate" as people here seem to believe he is, so his crossover appeal is extremely exaggerated. Another thing to keep in mind that Bullock running for president could very well result in him losing the nomination (extremely likely) and Steve Daines winning reelection to the Senate, so it would be a lose-lose situation for Democrats. Like I said before, Daines could lose to some other Democrat as well, but Bullock would be their best bet.

Yeah, but Bullock doesn't need to be conservative OR moderate to reach out to culturally moderate-to-conservative Obama-Trump voters.
That's not a winning strategy. Turning out the true base of the party, people of color, as well as consolidating the Romney-Clinton vote and Stein voters, is.

Agree to disagree, I suppose.
Logged
McGovernForPrez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 17, 2017, 12:47:01 PM »

Bullock is nowehere near as "conservative" or "moderate" as people here seem to believe he is, so his crossover appeal is extremely exaggerated. Another thing to keep in mind that Bullock running for president could very well result in him losing the nomination (extremely likely) and Steve Daines winning reelection to the Senate, so it would be a lose-lose situation for Democrats. Like I said before, Daines could lose to some other Democrat as well, but Bullock would be their best bet.

Yeah, but Bullock doesn't need to be conservative OR moderate to reach out to culturally moderate-to-conservative Obama-Trump voters.
That's not a winning strategy. Turning out the true base of the party, people of color, as well as consolidating the Romney-Clinton vote and Stein voters, is.
Turning out the base isn't enough when a lot of states don't have a large enough base to begin with. If we actually do manage to win with that strategy the margin will be incredibly narrow. Turning out the base is difficult and solidifying Romney Clinton voters is even more so. WWC is much more elastic. Plus it's antithesis to Democratic goals to become the party of moderate conservatism.
"Muh WWC" is orgasmic for Trump. They aren't going to vote for any Democrat over him. Why? White identity politics. The Democrat would only win those voters if they railed against Mexicans and Muslims. On the other hand, Romney-Clinton voters don't have those attitudes and so wouldn't flip to Trump. Also, chasing the wild goose that is "muh WWC" is what would make us the party of moderate conservatism.

I'm very frustrated by alt-leftists seeking to undermine the Party's civil rights stances. If they get their way, we (minorities) won't have a voice in government because neither party would care about us.
The WWC is no longer "orgasmic" for Trump. His approvals in the midwest have collapsed. There's no need to bash Mexicans and Muslimsee in order to regain these voters. Obama did very well with these voters, and he was black. Obama managed to appeal to these groups without resorting to moderate conservatism, so we can do it again. Hillary Clinton on the other spent her entire campaign appealing to moderate suburban voters and fell flat on her face.

Also I'm not "alt-left". I'd call myself a more practical leaning Bernie supporters. I understand the need for moderates in the party. I have no problem with Manchin or Heitkamp. I don't even have a problem with Cory Booker so long as he stays in the Senate. Most Bernie supporters aren't trying to remove the voices of minorities. They're just focused more on economic class than racial class. I'll be the first to admit Bernie didn't do a good enough job reaching out to black voters during the primaries. Just because I happen to support a white guy for the nomination doesn't mean I want the party to abandon minorities. We're still a big tent party and minorities will obviously be a strong pillar of whatever new coalition we form, but right now WWC are the swing voters so we need to go after them.
Logged
Warren 4 Secretary of Everything
Clinton1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,203
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 17, 2017, 02:05:37 PM »

Have any of you posters commenting about how overhyped Bullock is actually watched one of his speeches, interviews, or ads? Honestly of all the non-Biden/Sanders candidates, he and Jason Kander exude the most charisma and authenticity. And that's what sunk the Democratic Party last year. It wasn't that we were "too liberal" or "too centrist".

It was that we pushed a candidate that didn't inspire and people couldn't connect to. We need a nominee who can go out and give voters someone that they feel actually genuinely cares about their problems. Look back at the most successful Presidents of the last 50 years. Each of them either inspired or connected to the electorate. We need someone we can believe in. And Bullock might be that guy.

And if you Bullock-cynics are right and he won't appeal to the national Democratic base then he'll definitely drop out by the day after the New Hampshire primary in February. Montana's filing deadline isn't until mid-March. He can still run for Senate AND President.
Logged
Coraxion
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 906
Ethiopia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 17, 2017, 03:02:46 PM »

Bullock is nowehere near as "conservative" or "moderate" as people here seem to believe he is, so his crossover appeal is extremely exaggerated. Another thing to keep in mind that Bullock running for president could very well result in him losing the nomination (extremely likely) and Steve Daines winning reelection to the Senate, so it would be a lose-lose situation for Democrats. Like I said before, Daines could lose to some other Democrat as well, but Bullock would be their best bet.

Yeah, but Bullock doesn't need to be conservative OR moderate to reach out to culturally moderate-to-conservative Obama-Trump voters.
That's not a winning strategy. Turning out the true base of the party, people of color, as well as consolidating the Romney-Clinton vote and Stein voters, is.
Turning out the base isn't enough when a lot of states don't have a large enough base to begin with. If we actually do manage to win with that strategy the margin will be incredibly narrow. Turning out the base is difficult and solidifying Romney Clinton voters is even more so. WWC is much more elastic. Plus it's antithesis to Democratic goals to become the party of moderate conservatism.
"Muh WWC" is orgasmic for Trump. They aren't going to vote for any Democrat over him. Why? White identity politics. The Democrat would only win those voters if they railed against Mexicans and Muslims. On the other hand, Romney-Clinton voters don't have those attitudes and so wouldn't flip to Trump. Also, chasing the wild goose that is "muh WWC" is what would make us the party of moderate conservatism.

I'm very frustrated by alt-leftists seeking to undermine the Party's civil rights stances. If they get their way, we (minorities) won't have a voice in government because neither party would care about us.
The WWC is no longer "orgasmic" for Trump. His approvals in the midwest have collapsed. There's no need to bash Mexicans and Muslimsee in order to regain these voters. Obama did very well with these voters, and he was black. Obama managed to appeal to these groups without resorting to moderate conservatism, so we can do it again. Hillary Clinton on the other spent her entire campaign appealing to moderate suburban voters and fell flat on her face.
And? Studies of these voters show their deplorable attitudes towards Muslims, immigrants in general, and black people. They probably voted for Obama over Romney because they preferred his economic policies over Romney's. And last year, they were okay with both Trump and Clinton's economic policies, so they were free to vote based on "culture war" issues.

In any case, as long as the Dem nominee doesn't have the second-worst favorability ratings for any major party nominee in history, they should have the Rust Belt trio that decided the election locked up.
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,976


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 17, 2017, 03:24:19 PM »

I think he would need a perfect storm to win with Booker/Harris splitting up the black vote and Warren/Gillibrand splitting up the feminist/hard left vote. Bullock would have to do very well with moderates and men to pull it off. Needs a fragmented primary because there is no way he is beating someone like Harris 1 on 1.
Logged
McGovernForPrez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 17, 2017, 04:51:00 PM »

Have any of you posters commenting about how overhyped Bullock is actually watched one of his speeches, interviews, or ads? Honestly of all the non-Biden/Sanders candidates, he and Jason Kander exude the most charisma and authenticity. And that's what sunk the Democratic Party last year. It wasn't that we were "too liberal" or "too centrist".

It was that we pushed a candidate that didn't inspire and people couldn't connect to. We need a nominee who can go out and give voters someone that they feel actually genuinely cares about their problems. Look back at the most successful Presidents of the last 50 years. Each of them either inspired or connected to the electorate. We need someone we can believe in. And Bullock might be that guy.

And if you Bullock-cynics are right and he won't appeal to the national Democratic base then he'll definitely drop out by the day after the New Hampshire primary in February. Montana's filing deadline isn't until mid-March. He can still run for Senate AND President.
Thank you. I keep trying to say how charis magic the guy is. His speamong abilitit's are great and he's also an extremely talented debater. Just watching him destroy assaultforte was incredible.
Logged
BlueDogDemocrat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 289
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 17, 2017, 05:00:32 PM »

Bullock is one of my top choices for 2020 I really hope he runs.
Logged
ProgressiveCanadian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,690
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 17, 2017, 06:24:16 PM »

HAHAHAHAHA...no. Blue dogs are a dying breed, the ones that are still alive are pushing for tax cuts for the rich with the Trump administration so thats how principled they are.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 17, 2017, 06:31:04 PM »

I'm very frustrated by alt-leftists seeking to undermine the Party's civil rights stances. If they get their way, we (minorities) won't have a voice in government because neither party would care about us.

What civil rights stance? Mass incarceration under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?
Logged
McGovernForPrez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 17, 2017, 07:46:44 PM »

HAHAHAHAHA...no. Blue dogs are a dying breed, the ones that are still alive are pushing for tax cuts for the rich with the Trump administration so thats how principled they are.
Steve Bullock isn't a blue dog. He's more of a moderate progressive. His stances on campaign finance are really strong. It's what allows me to support him over other red state Dems.
Logged
Coraxion
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 906
Ethiopia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 17, 2017, 07:47:26 PM »

I'm very frustrated by alt-leftists seeking to undermine the Party's civil rights stances. If they get their way, we (minorities) won't have a voice in government because neither party would care about us.

What civil rights stance? Mass incarceration under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?
Shut up.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 17, 2017, 08:32:42 PM »

I'm very frustrated by alt-leftists seeking to undermine the Party's civil rights stances. If they get their way, we (minorities) won't have a voice in government because neither party would care about us.

What civil rights stance? Mass incarceration under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?
Shut up.

Did you mean police shootings under Obama?
Logged
Coraxion
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 906
Ethiopia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 17, 2017, 09:30:24 PM »

I'm very frustrated by alt-leftists seeking to undermine the Party's civil rights stances. If they get their way, we (minorities) won't have a voice in government because neither party would care about us.

What civil rights stance? Mass incarceration under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?
Shut up.

Did you mean police shootings under Obama?
I'm talking about shoving minorities aside, talking about "White Middle America", trashing any candidate that isn't a white male, etc.
Logged
GoTfan
GoTfan21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,578
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 17, 2017, 09:33:49 PM »

I'm very frustrated by alt-leftists seeking to undermine the Party's civil rights stances. If they get their way, we (minorities) won't have a voice in government because neither party would care about us.

What civil rights stance? Mass incarceration under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?
Shut up.

Did you mean police shootings under Obama?
I'm talking about shoving minorities aside, talking about "White Middle America", trashing any candidate that isn't a white male, etc.

Okay, so Bernie's supporters are white supremacists?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 13 queries.