Democrat presidential debate official thread

Truth b told wrote:

moanswers wrote:

+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.

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

That is not what History Shows, ALL of The Democrats who became President From Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, James Polk, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland (Twice), Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (And Any Democrats I missed ALL were white Males, and won with a White Male Running Partner.

Back Bay '75 wrote:

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.

Gerrymandering does not affect the presidential election.

Every state with a significant amount of electoral votes gives all of their electoral votes to the winner, regardless of margin.

Now voter suppression is an issue, especially in North Carolina.

And Florida has election control issues as well.

Blind partisanship is tough to overcome.

You need turnout and solidarity for that.

I wonder if there will be any major third party candidates next year. I get the feeling there won't be.

If there is a third part candidate, I my guess is that it will be a conservative choice as an alternative to Trump, which will of course hurt Trump.

I don't see a Jill Stein type coming out to spoil the Democrat votes.

Mayor Pete is now leading the Iowa Poll, How about a Mayor Pete/Rashida Tlaib Ticket, Have the First Gay/Muslim Ticket for a Major Party, this would kill the Stereotype that Gays and Muslims don't get along so well, Same with a Sanders/Tlaib Ticket a Jewish/Muslim Ticket This would Symbolize that in the USA Jewish and Muslims get along great and both tickets would prove USA is one big Happy Family where EVERYONE is American First and the groups NEVER conflict.

Hello all I recently switched to the Democratic Party so I could vote in the primarys as an agent of chaos. The mods have deleted my thread thrice for no apparent reason.

As I was saying, who should I vote for that will hurt the Dem front runners and eventual Dem general candidate?

I'm leaning towards Kamala or Warren. Potentially Booker but i dont see him getting past iowa

L L wrote:

Now voter suppression is an issue, especially in North Carolina.

Please provide explains of this “voter suppression”.

Who are these people who want to vote but are being told not to?

Vote for Castro. Someone that calls someone with a Jewish background a neo-Nazi will probably not get very far in today's hyper sensitive climate.

The Real Film Rep wrote:

L L wrote:

Now voter suppression is an issue, especially in North Carolina.

Please provide explains of this “voter suppression”.

Who are these people who want to vote but are being told not to?

North Carolina

In 2013, the state House passed a bill that requires voters to show a photo ID issued by North Carolina, a passport, or a military identification card to begin in 2016. Out-of-state drivers licenses were to be accepted only if the voter registered within 90 days of the election, and university photo identification was not acceptable.[61] In July 2016, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision in a number of consolidated actions and struck down the law's photo ID requirement, finding that the new voting provisions targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision," and that the legislators had acted with clear "discriminatory intent" in enacting strict election rules, shaping the rules based on data they received about African-American registration and voting patterns.[62][63] On May 15, 2017, the law officially died when the US Supreme Court rejected efforts to review the Appeals Court ruling.[64]

OK, everybody, there's a new candidate jumping in.

The immensely famous, Deval Patrick

The allegations fall into several categories. Some voters claim that individuals came to their homes and collected their unsealed absentee ballots. Others allege that they received absentee ballots that they never requested. In addition, multiple individuals have come forward to claim that they were paid by a Republican political operative, Leslie McCrae Dowless, to collect absentee ballots from voters; under North Carolina law, it is, with limited exceptions, illegal to collect and return someone else’s absentee ballot.

douglas burke wrote:

Truth b told wrote:

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

That is not what History Shows, ALL of The Democrats who became President From Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, James Polk, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland (Twice), Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (And Any Democrats I missed ALL were white Males, and won with a White Male Running Partner.

Really? Think again.

It doesn't matter if Warren wins popular vote decisively. It does matter if most in the country comes out in droves to vote because they are excited about Warren.

The only thing that matters is how she will do in the battle ground states. She's doesn't do so well there.

You are too young to remember George McGovern.

correction: It does not matter if the country comes out in droves to vote warren

I know it takes 270 electoral votes to win and think Warren has a path and I have described it.

Florida is a big part of that and Trump is not likely to win Arizona or Pennsylvania again even against Warren.

George McGovern? He got crushed in the popular vote (60% to 37%) as well as the electoral vote.

Of course the guy who beat him had to resign because of the corrupt way he went about the campaign.

So McGovern was pegged as radical because he floated the idea guaranteed minimum income.

But guess what? In 1975 (under Ford but with a large Democrat majority in both the House and Senate) they enacted the federal Earned Income Tax credit and expanded it later. That's basically guaranteed minimum income.

Progressives are people who try to initiate progress and a lot of the plans eventually get passed.

Conservatives hold the country back.

“She’s the only one who consistently leaves the room with more support than whatever she came in with,” Cliff Albright, co-founder of the Black Voters Matter Fund, told Axios. "The exact opposite is the case for Joe Biden."

Warren has steadily been gaining support among black Democrats along with her overall rise in the nominating contest. She had less than 0.5% support from black Democrats in March; by the end of October that had risen to 20%.

Biden as of the end of October was at 43%, about where he started in March.

There is a trend going on here. It is slow and steady.

Biden enjoyed a nice head start.

This will be quite a race.

Again, Bloomberg entering does not help Biden.

I wonder what would happen if and when Sanders bows out.

Moderates are really fearful of Warren.

TP is a basic human right

https://nypost.com/2019/11/15/young-girl-hospitalized-because-of-schools-toilet-paper-policy-family-says/

I see Warren as Clinton 2.0. She off putting (not that DT is warm and fuzzy) and just an easily dislikeable person. Also she's been very dishonest about her programs and how and if she can even pretend to know how to pay for any of the stuff she's promising. Also running around pretending to be an Indian is pretty bad.

Hilary almost beat DT. It's not like he's a great candidate, so maybe Warren could pull off what HRC couldn't. However there's a lot of talk about others jumping in, and there wouldn't be that talk if they didn't think the field was too weak to actually win.

Warren is really not like Hillary at all except for being an older white woman.

She doesn't run around pretending to be an Indian. When she grew up, she was told she had American Indian heritage and she put it on applications in the past. It's her opposition that keeps bring that up. The genetic test was a dumb idea, though.

Warren's policies are much different than Clinton's, who was centrist.

Likability is subjective but I see Warren as a person that can get peopled enthused much better than Hillary did.

Hillary lacked an authentic feeling of charisma. Warren projects her energy and feelings much better.

There will be misogynists who oppose her.

And she will be called a socialist. But the Republicans will call any of them a socialist.

L L wrote:

There will be misogynists who oppose her.

And she will be called a socialist. But the Republicans will call any of them a socialist.

Man do you guys ever get tired of playing the victim?

This was the mantra during Obama and lord did I get tired of it. Anyone that opposes you is against you because you are a woman or because you are black. You can be a black person, or a woman and have really bad ideas that other people completely disagree with, no matter what sex or color you might be.

As far as socialism, if you adopt the policies of a man who actually IS a socialist, isn't it more honest to actually own it? She's just disingenuous (a polite way of saying she's a liar.) She wants to pay for medicaid for all, not with a "tax" but with a federally mandated fee that is paid to government- but it's not a tax! While I disagree with Bernie at least he has the guts to say what he is and how he intends on taxing everyone.