DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

nohero said:

FilmCarp said:
I think things are so nuts now with Trump that everything could be different in 6 months.  I want everyone to run, as others have said above, and we will see who sticks.  No candidate will be perfect.

 Exactly.  I have two additional thoughts.
1.  The negative campaigning (like the deceptive claims about where a candidate gets contributions) isn't good.  The GOP loves it.  Candidates should put their ideas and list of skills on the table, and the primary voters should evaluate that.
2.  Once a nominee is finally chosen, it would be great if everyone who participated in the primary process as a voter gets behind that nominee.  What we don't need is another toxic display, of the loser's supporters loudly demonstrating against the nominee on the floor of the convention, for the television audience.  Again, the GOP would love it.

So you're saying that agreeing on good enough is better than squabbling over perfect?  I'll have to reflect on that.

If 2016 taught people anything, it is that votes do matter.  

Compromise unfortunately is always required.  The Democratic party is national.  I want more gun control, but no Democrat running in Texas can say that.  So if a candidate meets me halfway by supporting liberal social issues and liberal judges I'll work towards gun control through my Congresspeople and Senators.

  And while I'm all for national single payer health care, and I have a plan to get there, I see it as a 20 year project because of how disruptive it could be to the health care industry that is a huge employer in this country. I can't see anyone promising that and actually delivering in one term.

tjohn said:

nohero said:

FilmCarp said:
I think things are so nuts now with Trump that everything could be different in 6 months.  I want everyone to run, as others have said above, and we will see who sticks.  No candidate will be perfect.

 Exactly.  I have two additional thoughts.
1.  The negative campaigning (like the deceptive claims about where a candidate gets contributions) isn't good.  The GOP loves it.  Candidates should put their ideas and list of skills on the table, and the primary voters should evaluate that.
2.  Once a nominee is finally chosen, it would be great if everyone who participated in the primary process as a voter gets behind that nominee.  What we don't need is another toxic display, of the loser's supporters loudly demonstrating against the nominee on the floor of the convention, for the television audience.  Again, the GOP would love it.

So you're saying that agreeing on good enough is better than squabbling over perfect?  I'll have to reflect on that.
If 2016 taught people anything, it is that votes do matter.  

"Squabbling over perfect" is what the primaries are for.  In the general "good enough" is really another way of saying, "better than the alternative".

You're right, some people mistakenly believe that holding out for perfect should continue into the general election.

nohero said:

FilmCarp said:
I think things are so nuts now with Trump that everything could be different in 6 months.  I want everyone to run, as others have said above, and we will see who sticks.  No candidate will be perfect.

 Exactly.  I have two additional thoughts.
1.  The negative campaigning (like the deceptive claims about where a candidate gets contributions) isn't good.  The GOP loves it.  Candidates should put their ideas and list of skills on the table, and the primary voters should evaluate that.
2.  Once a nominee is finally chosen, it would be great if everyone who participated in the primary process as a voter gets behind that nominee.  What we don't need is another toxic display, of the loser's supporters loudly demonstrating against the nominee on the floor of the convention, for the television audience.  Again, the GOP would love it.

 3. Third party candidates - please stay home this cycle. This is not the time to screw around.

I would hope that an old-fashioned "Never-Trump Republican" runs as a Third-Party Candidate.

LOST said:
I would hope that an old-fashioned "Never-Trump Republican" runs as a Third-Party Candidate.

 No. That gives some the ability to pretend to be noble, and Trump could win any way - especially if votes don't go to the Dem nominee. 

On the other hand, a republican primary challenge to Trump would be fun to watch.

South_Mountaineer said:

LOST said:
I would hope that an old-fashioned "Never-Trump Republican" runs as a Third-Party Candidate.

 No. That gives some the ability to pretend to be noble, and Trump could win any way - especially if votes don't go to the Dem nominee. 

 I don't see that. It would split the Republican vote. The Dem would still get the same amount of votes.

jamie said:
MoveOn Straw Poll:
Someone else/DK/other: 28.8 percent
Beto O’Rourke: 15.6 percent
Joe Biden: 14.9 percent
Bernie Sanders: 13.1 percent
Kamala Harris: 10 percent
Elizabeth Warren: 6.4 percent
Sherrod Brown: 2.9 percent
Amy Klobuchar: 2.8 percent
Michael Bloomberg: 2.7 percent
Cory Booker: 2.6 percent
Also, I understand the issues in doing this - but how great would it be if the potential candidates also named their possible VP picks?  Issues would be that some of them may be running for the top spot already, plus it give an additional target to the main candidate.

 I heard this on NPR this morning. I expect early January will bring a spate of formal announcements. 

Can you imagine? US President Castro. I know his name is irrelevant to his fitness for the presidency, but holy cow. 

I wonder if it would hurt him? Certainly fodder for right wing mouth-frothers.

The right wing is now sleeping with Putin. Why would Castro bother them?

FilmCarp said:
The right wing is now sleeping with Putin. Why would Castro bother them?

Hee hee. You're so cute.

I guarantee if he's a serious candidate some people will make it an issue. I can only imagine what Trump will say. And despite the obvious racism of such a tactic, I bet you a lot of his supporters will love it.

FilmCarp said:
Compromise unfortunately is always required.  The Democratic party is national.  I want more gun control, but no Democrat running in Texas can say that.   

"Gun owners know the importance of keeping the safety on. With mass shootings increasing in frequency and lethality, we need policies that prevent gun violence, not enable it. I have long supported banning military-style assault weapons, eliminating gun sale loopholes, and requiring a universal background check. While Americans overwhelmingly support these smart reforms, Republicans continue to block any progress, even to limit those on the terror watch list from gaining access to such weapons. Quite simply, too dangerous to fly should also mean too dangerous to buy guns, even as we assure reasonable due process rights for those who may be improperly listed as dangerous."- Lloyd Doggett II, US Congressman, Texas District 35

Do you think Doggett could carry the state?  Where is that district, Austin?

Realistically speaking, what would be the deadline for people to declare that they are running? (I understand there is no real deadline, but if they wait too long they simply will be too far behind)

mrincredible said:

FilmCarp said:
The right wing is now sleeping with Putin. Why would Castro bother them?

Hee hee. You're so cute.
I guarantee if he's a serious candidate some people will make it an issue. I can only imagine what Trump will say. And despite the obvious racism of such a tactic, I bet you a lot of his supporters will love it.

 B. Hussein Obama.

basil said:
Realistically speaking, what would be the deadline for people to declare that they are running? (I understand there is no real deadline, but if they wait too long they simply will be too far behind)

 Here are some recent dates in regard to presidential announcements:

Obama - 2/10/2007
McCain - 4/25/2007

Romney - 6/2/11

Hillary - 4/12/15
Bernie - 4/28/15
Trump - 6/16/15

jamie said:

basil said:
Realistically speaking, what would be the deadline for people to declare that they are running? (I understand there is no real deadline, but if they wait too long they simply will be too far behind)

 Here are some recent dates in regard to presidential announcements:
Obama - 2/10/2007
McCain - 4/25/2007
Romney - 6/2/11
Hillary - 4/12/15
Bernie - 4/28/15
Trump - 6/16/15

Ok, that's useful. So summer 2019 seems to be the deadline.

I am excited about the Democratic primaries! I can't wait to see who runs and how they carry themselves. The more the merrier!

Thé rules vary by state.  If you wanted to get your name on the NJ ballot for president in 2016, and you were running as an independent, you would have had to file and present 800 signatures in support of your candidacy by August 1, 2016. There are different rules for running for a party nomination.

I guess the parties make up their own rules for selecting a nominee. But I think a political party needs to reach a certain threshold of votes to automatically get a spot on the ballot for the next election.  I would imagine a serious candidacy would have to have a knowledgeable staff dedicated to understanding the filing deadlines for each state.

At any rate, I’m glad the 2020 Presidential Race is underway because presumably Mitch McConnell now won’t let any Supreme Court Justice nominees come up for review by the Senate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/sunday-review/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-instagram-twitter-satire.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

basil said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/sunday-review/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-instagram-twitter-satire.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Although Fox News and fellow travelers will have a non-stop case of the vapors over AOC, she still needs to get herself educated quickly on the complexities and costs of some of the policies she is advocating.

FilmCarp said:
Do you think Doggett could carry the state?  Where is that district, Austin?

 Of course not.  Was carrying the state a requirement to be a Democrat running (and winning) in Texas?

Beto also supports gun control legislation.  He didn't win but he came relatively close and he served for 3 terms as US Representative for the Texas 16th District (El Paso).  

My point was that your premise was off base in a way that undermined your conclusion. There are many conservatives in Texas who are never going to vote for a Dem no matter how "moderate" they may be.  That said, the progressive base that made Beto a serious contender is hungry for real change.  That base (and their activism) is what is going to flip Texas when it finally flips.

tjohn said:

basil said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/sunday-review/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-instagram-twitter-satire.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Although Fox News and fellow travelers will have a non-stop case of the vapors over AOC, she still needs to get herself educated quickly on the complexities and costs of some of the policies she is advocating.

 Since you seem to be educated on those complexities and costs, could you be more specific?

Klinker said:

tjohn said:

basil said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/sunday-review/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-instagram-twitter-satire.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Although Fox News and fellow travelers will have a non-stop case of the vapors over AOC, she still needs to get herself educated quickly on the complexities and costs of some of the policies she is advocating.

 Since you seem to be educated on those complexities and costs, could you be more specific?

I am not, nor is AOC.  Evening assuming deafening agreement that single-payer healthcare and government paid for college and a green new deal is the way to go, it has to be implemented properly or the economic disruption will lead to social upheaval.

tjohn said:

I am not, nor is AOC.  Evening assuming deafening agreement that single-payer healthcare and government paid for college and a green new deal is the way to go, it has to be implemented properly or the economic disruption will lead to social upheaval.

 Just out of curiosity, how do you know she isn't?  

Klinker said:

tjohn said:

I am not, nor is AOC.  Evening assuming deafening agreement that single-payer healthcare and government paid for college and a green new deal is the way to go, it has to be implemented properly or the economic disruption will lead to social upheaval.

 Just out of curiosity, how do you know she isn't?  

 Maybe she's hiding her knowledge for tactical reasons.

tjohn said:

Klinker said:

tjohn said:

I am not, nor is AOC.  Evening assuming deafening agreement that single-payer healthcare and government paid for college and a green new deal is the way to go, it has to be implemented properly or the economic disruption will lead to social upheaval.

 Just out of curiosity, how do you know she isn't?  

 Maybe she's hiding her knowledge for tactical reasons.

 I'm not quite sure what you are referring to? What is it that she has done that, to your remind, reveals a yawning chasm of ignorance?  

You formed this opinion based (I assume) on some sort of evidence.  I am simply asking you to share that evidence with those of us who may not have encountered it.

The idea of a Green New Deal has been kicked around for more than a decade and it seems to be pretty well hashed out.  Its not like AOC just pulled it out of her..... imagination.

Klinker said:
The idea of a Green New Deal has been kicked around for more than a decade and it seems to be pretty well hashed out.  Its not like AOC just pulled it out of her..... imagination.

She was interviewed a couple of months ago and was completely unable to respond intelligently to a question about the Israeli-Palestine conflict.  I am, perhaps unfairly, assuming she is unschooled in all of the issues and, therefore, I am hoping that she is catching up quickly.  

tjohn said:

Klinker said:
The idea of a Green New Deal has been kicked around for more than a decade and it seems to be pretty well hashed out.  Its not like AOC just pulled it out of her..... imagination.

She was interviewed a couple of months ago and was completely unable to respond intelligently to a question about the Israeli-Palestine conflict.  I am, perhaps unfairly, assuming she is unschooled in all of the issues  

Indeed, your assumption does seem a bit unfair. 

Klinker said:

tjohn said:

Klinker said:
The idea of a Green New Deal has been kicked around for more than a decade and it seems to be pretty well hashed out.  Its not like AOC just pulled it out of her..... imagination.

She was interviewed a couple of months ago and was completely unable to respond intelligently to a question about the Israeli-Palestine conflict.  I am, perhaps unfairly, assuming she is unschooled in all of the issues  

Indeed, your assumption does seem a bit unfair. 

 When it comes to politicians, I find it best to assume ignorance until proven otherwise.  I do, from time to time, hear interviews with elected representatives who are quite knowledgeable and reasonable.  Others are clearly not.