Democrat presidential debate official thread

douglas burke wrote:

AND look For Texas to at least be close, ESPECIALLY If Julian Castro is picked as a VP he is EXTREMELY POPULAR in Texas with BOTH Republicans and Democrats, even Beto O'Rourke as VP will make Texas close, but O'Rourke is only VERY POPULAR with Democrats, Republicans don't like him, that is why I think Castro will be VP Nominee to try to flip Texas.

This is a very good point. All this speculation is too early considering VP pick can make a huge difference. Just look at 2008. I really don't think people thought Obama was going to win until McCain picked Palin for VP. That one move pretty much cost him the election.

Trump can get a different VP running mate too.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/470054-steve-schmidt-overwhelming-chance-that-trump-will-dump-pence-for-haley

“I am of the opinion....”

That is my personal opinion. I cannot prove it and could even be wrong but that is what I firmly believe. I think Democrats need to be more pragmatic and in some cases less idealistic.

I believe there is a reason why Trump and his team have attacked Biden so aggressively, all the while leaving Warren mostly alone.

CounterPoint wrote:

Trump can get a different VP running mate too.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/470054-steve-schmidt-overwhelming-chance-that-trump-will-dump-pence-for-haley

I would not be surprised and it would be a good move for him.

Democrats will not win Texas in 2020, close is worthless in terms of a path to the White House next year.

Your words were:

"I am of the opinion that Biden will be competitive against Trump and could well beat him.

If Warren is the nominee then we’ll have four more years of Trump. It’s that simple."

You showed an opinion that Biden "could" beat Trump.

You were very definitive that Warren could not. You implicitly used the verb will instead of could when expressing your comment on Warren's chances.

Almost Flagpolian with that decisiveness and hubris.

Yes, at this point the odds favor Biden better than Warren in the swing states.

That's why Trump is going so hard after Biden.

It reminds of how hard Republicans attacked Hillary leading up to 2008 and ignored Obama.

L L wrote:

Your words were:

"I am of the opinion that Biden will be competitive against Trump and could well beat him.

If Warren is the nominee then we’ll have four more years of Trump. It’s that simple."

You showed an opinion that Biden "could" beat Trump.

You were very definitive that Warren could not. You implicitly used the verb will instead of could when expressing your comment on Warren's chances.

Almost Flagpolian with that decisiveness and hubris.

Yes, at this point the odds favor Biden better than Warren in the swing states.

That's why Trump is going so hard after Biden.

It reminds of how hard Republicans attacked Hillary leading up to 2008 and ignored Obama.

I know, everything from the bold text onwards was my opinion. I’m not going to say it for every single sentence.

Anyway, don’t hold your breath on Texas next year.

Once again, Democrats need to be more pragmatic and in some cases less idealistic. There is a reason Trump and his team have spent so much time attacking Biden while leaving Warren mostly alone. Forget what Republicans done in 2008, that was not Trump and his team. I have to give his campaign team credit, they nailed it in terms of winning the electoral college three years ago. They know where their real challenge comes from again this time.

A long time ago and probably under a different name, I suggested Biden run with Mayor Pete, but Biden states ahead of time he plans to server only one term. This could still be a very good ticket and somewhat alleviates concerns over his age, and encourage younger votes who like Pete to vote for ticket. Obviously, Pete would have to suffer some losses and drop out of the presidential race.

I also think a Mayor Pete and Klobuchar ticket would be pretty good. Also Mayor Pete and Julian Castro.

I don't know who you could pair up with Bernie or Warren, except maybe each other.

Ciro wrote:

Once again, Democrats need to be more pragmatic and in some cases less idealistic. There is a reason Trump and his team have spent so much time attacking Biden while leaving Warren mostly alone. Forget what Republicans done in 2008, that was not Trump and his team. I have to give his campaign team credit, they nailed it in terms of winning the electoral college three years ago. They know where their real challenge comes from again this time.

Trump tapped into a visceral appeal of certain types of voters. He wasn't being pragmatic.

Being idealistic brings out more visceral feelings and can be a winning strategy.

I am not claiming it is the best path but it is a possible path.

Voters need to vote their gut.

Democrats won't gather on a strategy of how to choose the best candidate for the general election. They pick who they want to be the president.

Way in the past, the candidates were picked candidates at the conventions. That's not how it's done now.

I am still looking back at the pragmatic moderate pick of John Kerry in 2004.

And Hillary was the pragmatic moderate pick of 2016.

And by the way, I'm defending the choice for Warren and would be with her all the way if she was the nominee but haven't decided on backing her right now.

I still like Cory Booker, who's young, charismatic and generally moderate and practical and has experience legislating at the national level.

I never said Trump was being pragmatic, I am saying that Democrats need to be more pragmatic this time round to win the White House.

Ciro wrote:

Once again, Democrats need to be more pragmatic and in some cases less idealistic. There is a reason Trump and his team have spent so much time attacking Biden while leaving Warren mostly alone. Forget what Republicans done in 2008, that was not Trump and his team. I have to give his campaign team credit, they nailed it in terms of winning the electoral college three years ago. They know where their real challenge comes from again this time.

One thing to keep in mind here is that Trump's current team is not the same team that won him the election in 2016 as most of those people have either been fired or quit (for example Steve Bannon). I don't know what that means for his chances, I would imagine that in some ways it means his chances are worse than in 2016 but you never know.

sdfjhsdfjhskjdfhsdf wrote:

Ciro wrote:

Once again, Democrats need to be more pragmatic and in some cases less idealistic. There is a reason Trump and his team have spent so much time attacking Biden while leaving Warren mostly alone. Forget what Republicans done in 2008, that was not Trump and his team. I have to give his campaign team credit, they nailed it in terms of winning the electoral college three years ago. They know where their real challenge comes from again this time.

One thing to keep in mind here is that Trump's current team is not the same team that won him the election in 2016 as most of those people have either been fired or quit (for example Steve Bannon). I don't know what that means for his chances, I would imagine that in some ways it means his chances are worse than in 2016 but you never know.

That’s fair, Bannon worked wonders for him in 2016, I still think they mostly have their finger on the pulse in terms of the biggest threat in battleground states. Time will tell.

Also forgot to point out those who didn't get fired or quite were indicted. But thats fake news, they were just coffee boys.

Slowby wrote:

A long time ago and probably under a different name, I suggested Biden run with Mayor Pete, but Biden states ahead of time he plans to server only one term. This could still be a very good ticket and somewhat alleviates concerns over his age, and encourage younger votes who like Pete to vote for ticket. Obviously, Pete would have to suffer some losses and drop out of the presidential race.

I also think a Mayor Pete and Klobuchar ticket would be pretty good. Also Mayor Pete and Julian Castro.

I don't know who you could pair up with Bernie or Warren, except maybe each other.

+1 on the Biden/Pete ticket. It looks like a lot of people like Mayor Pete but worry about experience and whether an openly gay guy can win. But Biden's age is an issue. They kind of balance each other in terms of concerns.

Slowby wrote:

A long time ago and probably under a different name, I suggested Biden run with Mayor Pete, but Biden states ahead of time he plans to server only one term. This could still be a very good ticket and somewhat alleviates concerns over his age, and encourage younger votes who like Pete to vote for ticket. Obviously, Pete would have to suffer some losses and drop out of the presidential race.

I also think a Mayor Pete and Klobuchar ticket would be pretty good. Also Mayor Pete and Julian Castro.

I don't know who you could pair up with Bernie or Warren, except maybe each other.

That's not how a presidential ticket works most of the time. You need a progressive as a running mate for a moderate candidate and vice versa. Of course, ideology is not the only factor that you need to "balance" (age, gender, race and geography could be other important factors). But two moderates on a ticket would certainly be a turn off for many voters on the left, and Dems will have a problem with mobilizing them. The same with two progressives.

So if Warren is the nominee, we need a moderate as her running mate. Probably a younger male who is not from the East Coast. If Biden or any of the other moderates is the nominee, we need someone to their left.

None of this matters. I am a life-long Democrat and I am virtually certain Trump will be re-elected. Unless he is removed from office he will serve two terms. Gerrymandering, voter suppression and rampant blind nationalism is just way too strong for the fractured Democratic party to defeat this time around.

Back Bay '75 wrote:

Gerrymandering, voter suppression and rampant blind nationalism is just way too strong for the fractured Democratic party to defeat this time around.

All those things still existed in 2008 when a black man won the presidency by a landslide. Don't be a defeatist, its pathetic.

That would be an excellent ticket that could never be. A large segment of democrats would hate the idea of two white males.