Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US Presidential Election 2020

134689306

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,732 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    With Gabbard and Castro joining the mix, the Silly Season for candidates has begun. Now if Bloomberg decides to run, we can truly say it has kicked off.

    I didn't think Gabbard had a slowflake's chance in the first instance, her credentials read like a shopping list of aspects that put her to the back of the grid, and then I read about her baggage. Wow. Not sure what she hopes to achieve, beyond a broader profile perhaps. At a mere 37 perhaps it's a 'long game' play.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,977 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    pixelburp wrote: »
    With Gabbard and Castro joining the mix, the Silly Season for candidates has begun. Now if Bloomberg decides to run, we can truly say it has kicked off.

    I didn't think Gabbard had a slowflake's chance in the first instance, her credentials read like a shopping list of aspects that put her to the back of the grid, and then I read about her baggage. Wow. Not sure what she hopes to achieve, beyond a broader profile perhaps. At a mere 37 perhaps it's a 'long game' play.

    If Bernie runs and wins, then he'd highly likely he would want a female VP. Warren would be the obvious safe choice, but Tulsi would be his second choice, genuinely can't see who else he would want atm. Tulsi will definitely have thought about that in the last few months.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,732 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Oh sure, when I learnt of her age, my first presumption was that it was some long-game, or a positioning tactic to become a potential VP candidate. Still, that baggage feels like something that'll torpedo her chances from the get-go, especially with the left leaning & progressive factions of the Democrats becoming louder and more prominent in the discourse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,977 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Gillbrand is official. Its going to be an absolutely stacked field so I don't really see what she brings to the table that will really stand out over the current favs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,393 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    Gillbrand is official. Its going to be an absolutely stacked field so I don't really see what she brings to the table that will really stand out over the current favs.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-kirsten-gillibrand-could-win-the-2020-democratic-primary/

    An article 538 put up on her potential. They're not overly confident on her, based on polling, but make some good points around her potential


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭theguzman


    I'd love to see Ocasio-Cortez get the Democratic nomination, unfortunately the Dem's won't pick her and Trump would most likely easily defeat her despite opinion polls giving her a great shot. Bernie if he'd be up for it, the Dems need to just come straight out of the closet and reveal their true Socialist colours this time around. Trump looks undefeatable to me so far and he is his own biggest opponent thus far.


  • Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭breatheme


    theguzman wrote: »
    I'd love to see Ocasio-Cortez get the Democratic nomination, unfortunately the Dem's won't pick her and Trump would most likely easily defeat her despite opinion polls giving her a great shot. Bernie if he'd be up for it, the Dems need to just come straight out of the closet and reveal their true Socialist colours this time around. Trump looks undefeatable to me so far and he is his own biggest opponent thus far.

    AOC is not old enough to be president according to the Constitution of the United States.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭theguzman


    breatheme wrote: »
    AOC is not old enough to be president according to the Constitution of the United States.

    You are right, she has to be 35 at a minimum, unless the rules were changed (unlikely). She could not stand for President until the 2024 US Presidential election.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,933 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    If Bernie runs and wins, then he'd highly likely he would want a female VP. Warren would be the obvious safe choice, but Tulsi would be his second choice, genuinely can't see who else he would want atm. Tulsi will definitely have thought about that in the last few months.

    He will obviously have to pick his running mate before the general election so it may not be a good idea to go with a like minded VP candidate, i.e Warren.

    Just like Pense appeals to the Christian base to counter Trumps lack of morals (three wives, affairs with porn stars eyc)

    I have no idea who Tulsi is.

    Edit - Ok I now see that Tulsi is Gabbard


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,334 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    There is no chance that it'll be a woman.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Ok?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,393 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    Ok?

    He has put it quite bluntly, but I think that the sentiment is that there is still a very sizeable portion of middle America/rust belt voters who won't vote for a women in a presidential campaign.

    It may be completely backwards & seem absurd, but unfortunately it is likely still a reality.

    Its the logic I had for saying that a Biden/Harris combo would have strong potential to allow for a 1-term Biden followed by Harris presidential run. Its gets her more public exposure & the chance to lay foundations in those areas, whilst also allowing the demographic shift to move further, by moving things forwards 6 years


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    TBH most of the people in the US that just won't vote for a woman because she's a woman are already going to vote for Trump.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,138 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    TBH most of the people in the US that just won't vote for a woman because she's a woman are already going to vote for Trump.

    Agreed, and I think even with moderates in 2016 it was more anti-Hilary than anti-woman.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Penn wrote: »
    Agreed, and I think even with moderates in 2016 it was more anti-Hilary than anti-woman.
    Clinton also absolutely failed to gain any real traction with uneducated white women and didn't exactly smash the educated white women vote either. Unless there is evidence that women won't vote for women (and I know that's difficult because we haven't been in this position before - but I think we can look at the success of women in the midterms as evidence that this isn't true) then the answer must be Hillary herself as oppose to generic "women".


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,334 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    I fully agree that Clinton was a terrible decision by the Dems. I said it many times in advance of their decision to let her run.
    The reason it won't be a woman is because senior figures in the Democrats won't have it. They'll say that a woman got a chance and failed. I think it'll be at least 10 years before a woman gets a chance to run again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,340 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    Penn wrote: »
    Agreed, and I think even with moderates in 2016 it was more anti-Hilary than anti-woman.

    It was anti Clinton for sure not anti woman. Republicans and right wing media have painted the Clinton's as the worst people in the world for 20 years. The irony of course is that Bill Clinton is probably most traditionally Republican president there has been since Eisenhower in many ways.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 188 ✭✭Ultros


    And so it begins...

    "Now Kamala Harris is a 2020 candidate, Trump stands no chance of winning another election"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/kamala-harris-election-2020-democratic-nominee-donald-trump-a8739386.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1548094090


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Clinton also absolutely failed to gain any real traction with uneducated white women and didn't exactly smash the educated white women vote either. Unless there is evidence that women won't vote for women (and I know that's difficult because we haven't been in this position before - but I think we can look at the success of women in the midterms as evidence that this isn't true) then the answer must be Hillary herself as oppose to generic "women".

    I think that was the reality of it. At the time there were many voices saying it was anti woman just to try put a cap on it, but it was always a majority anti hillary play.

    Youre always going to have a very very small group of people who won't vote for a candidate because of their gender on both sides.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    eagle eye wrote: »
    I fully agree that Clinton was a terrible decision by the Dems. I said it many times in advance of their decision to let her run.
    The reason it won't be a woman is because senior figures in the Democrats won't have it. They'll say that a woman got a chance and failed. I think it'll be at least 10 years before a woman gets a chance to run again.

    Unfortunately I think you're right, elected or not , using Hillary as the bar to get some of the older set (and i mean both genders) around to the idea of a female president was misguided. If anything she probably set back the chances for other women for years to come.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    He has put it quite bluntly, but I think that the sentiment is that there is still a very sizeable portion of middle America/rust belt voters who won't vote for a women in a presidential campaign.

    It may be completely backwards & seem absurd, but unfortunately it is likely still a reality.

    Its the logic I had for saying that a Biden/Harris combo would have strong potential to allow for a 1-term Biden followed by Harris presidential run. Its gets her more public exposure & the chance to lay foundations in those areas, whilst also allowing the demographic shift to move further, by moving things forwards 6 years

    As much as I'd never see myself on the dem side of the aisle, Biden Harris would actually be a pretty solid shot. She clearly has the experience and as much as I despise a lot of policy , she represents a moderate experienced democrat position. I'd probably downplay the sanctuary cities and dream act support in the rust belt but she'd make a solid VP.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Ultros wrote: »
    And so it begins...

    "Now Kamala Harris is a 2020 candidate, Trump stands no chance of winning another election"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/kamala-harris-election-2020-democratic-nominee-donald-trump-a8739386.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1548094090

    Hubris, arrogance and overconfidence much? I thought they would have learned from the 'no chance' that Trump had back in 2016...


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,732 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Ultros wrote: »
    And so it begins...

    "Now Kamala Harris is a 2020 candidate, Trump stands no chance of winning another election"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/kamala-harris-election-2020-democratic-nominee-donald-trump-a8739386.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1548094090

    Don't think a single thinkpiece in a UK paper counts for much; but you clicked into it and copied in here so I guess that was its real purpose, the hyperbolic title is clue enough.

    The only reaction I've seen so far had been a tepid acknowledgement of her general obscurity, certainly no pronouncements of victory


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    I have a lot of time for Harris. Will be interesting to see how she does, but she got donations from all States within an hour of her announcement, which is a good sign.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,799 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    Hubris, arrogance and overconfidence much? I thought they would have learned from the 'no chance' that Trump had back in 2016...

    While I would agree, I think he is much more of a known quantity this time rather than previously so can be beaten.

    But your right, to say he has no chance is bull****.

    He has every chance to win.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    I have a lot of time for Harris. Will be interesting to see how she does, but she got donations from all States within an hour of her announcement, which is a good sign.


    I've found her to be very impressive, in the limited amount of coverage/interviews that I've seen of her. I'd still say they'll go for a more experienced candidate, but it'll be interesting to see if she gains traction over the next year.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,799 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    I've found her to be very impressive, in the limited amount of coverage/interviews that I've seen of her. I'd still say they'll go for a more experienced candidate, but it'll be interesting to see if she gains traction over the next year.

    She'd be a much better VP candidate than POTUS candidate.

    Stick her with Biden.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Harris is the frontrunner in my mind. Everything I've read about her makes her a lightning rod for the unrepresented in US politics. As I've said previously, if the Dems repeat the previous mistakes of avoiding candidates who appear too "radical", then she won't get picked. But if she is picked, she has the greatest potential, in my mind.

    There are potentially some skeletons in the closet in relation to her time as an AG, but nothing major.

    It makes me laugh that the bookies put Biden as the frontrunner, when during the Obama administration, he was considered something of a comic foil to Obama, the embarrassment of the White House, out of touch with modern America.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,340 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    I think Harris would struggle in a national election in places like Pennsylvania, Maine, New Hampshire, Michigan and Wisconsin given those places are about as far removed from Northern California and Silicon Valley as can be. They are also states the Dems must win to take election.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    She'd be a much better VP candidate than POTUS candidate.

    Stick her with Biden.


    Not a bad shout at all. If the Dems go with Biden (which seems likely) then they'll need a younger VP to attract the younger vote. Either her or O'Rourke could be good VP material.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement