• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If the Democrats were smart...

Angel said:
Frankly, I like President Trump and I believe he's a lock for re-election in 2020.
Having said that, I do believe that if the Democrats were smart and daring, they'd get behind Tulsi Gabbard.

xH1gniR.jpg


She's young and sharp and earnest and thinks on her feet.
The Dems could run her on a "New Camelot" concept and really inspire an otherwise divided nation with hope for an American renascence.
Head to head in debate, Trump will eat the other Democratic hopefuls for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
But Tulsi, I believe, could give a good accounting of herself against Trump.

What do you think of a Tulsi Gabbard nomination?​
Click to expand...
Your initial premise is faulty . . .
 
Perotista said:
I think the key for 2020 is the 12% of independents, some 9 million voters who voted third party against both Trump and Clinton. We know they don't like Trump, so the Democrats need to come up with a candidate that can appeal to them. I am pretty sure Tulsi Gabbard would. I don't think any of the old foggies could attract a bigger portion of those 12% of independents than Gabbard.

I don't have any numbers to back that up, just a gut feeling. I was one of those 9 million back in 2016. I already know I won't be voting for Trump. But that doesn't mean I'll automatically vote democratic either. That depends on who they nominate. I think the polls show a lot of independents in the "It depends category." Meaning their vote depends on who is the Democratic nominee. If you look at the generic presidential vote, Question 26. Independents, 26% say they'll vote for the Democratic nominee, 29% for Trump, then 20% are in the it depends column.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hrk03f83zc/econTabReport.pdf

Bottom line, nominate a candidate attractive to independents, the dems win in a landslide. Nominate one as disliked or more disliked by independents as Hillary Clinton was. Another 2016 is certainly possible. Put me in the "It Depends," column until the Democrats choose their nominee.
Click to expand...

Some good points, but unless Obama runs, Trump looks like a lock.

Liberals continue to mistake their hysterical disdain for Trump for that of all voters, and he'll get millions of votes purely because liberals - whom most people can't stand - can't stand him.
 
"Despite failing to qualify for the third debate, Gabbard has remained in the primary race."

DvPyVuC.jpg


Tulsi Gabbard - Ballotpedia

Where Is Tulsi Gabbard? Hawaii Congresswoman Didn't Qualify for Third DNC Presidential Primary Debate​
As 10 Democratic presidential primary candidates take the debate stage tonight in Houston, some fans of Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who drew significant attention and interest during the first two debates, may be wondering why she isn't standing behind one of the podiums.

Gabbard, along with more than 10 other Democratic 2020 hopefuls, didn't make the cut, due to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) more stringent requirements. However, Gabbard, who represents Hawaii, has called out the DNC for lacking "transparency" when it assessed whether candidates met the standards required to appear in the third debate.

Despite failing to qualify for the third debate, Gabbard has remained in the primary race.
Click to expand...

Where Is Tulsi Gabbard? Hawaii Congresswoman Didn't Qualify for Third DNC Presidential Primary Debate

"Despite failing to qualify for the third debate, Gabbard has remained in the primary race."​
 
Angel said:
"Despite failing to qualify for the third debate, Gabbard has remained in the primary race."

DvPyVuC.jpg


Tulsi Gabbard - Ballotpedia

Where Is Tulsi Gabbard? Hawaii Congresswoman Didn't Qualify for Third DNC Presidential Primary Debate


Where Is Tulsi Gabbard? Hawaii Congresswoman Didn't Qualify for Third DNC Presidential Primary Debate

"Despite failing to qualify for the third debate, Gabbard has remained in the primary race."​
Click to expand...

Yeah guys, let's nominate the person who a highly illiberal Trump-cultist wants us to nominate who also whines and insults us when we ask why. :lamo If you want her to be nominated she's the last person we should.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Some good points, but unless Obama runs, Trump looks like a lock.

Liberals continue to mistake their hysterical disdain for Trump for that of all voters, and he'll get millions of votes purely because liberals - whom most people can't stand - can't stand him.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that simple. Numbers wise we know in 2016 42% of independents voted for Clinton, 12% voted third party. Against both Trump and Clinton. That is 54% of all independents voting against Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

I don't think many of those 12% of independents who voted against both Trump and Clinton have changed their minds about Trump. They still don't like him much.

We also know in 2018, the midterms. 54% of independents voted for the Democratic congressional candidates vs. 42% for Republican congressional critters. Strange how those numbers match. 42 plus 12 in 2016 for 54% of independents voting against Trump. 54% once again voting against the GOP in 2018.

Exit Polls 2018

Now if you look at question 67 run for reelection, 30% of independents say yes, 47% say no, 23% not sure. Not a good sign. Then go to question 49A Trump's favorable/unfavorable among independents. 37% of independents have either a very favorable or somewhat favorable view of Trump. 50% a very unfavorable or somewhat unfavorable view of him. 13% don't know.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hrk03f83zc/econTabReport.pdf

I think the above gives us a pretty good idea what independents think of Trump. Although it must be said that Trump does lead in the generic presidential poll 29-26 over the generic Democratic candidate with all those "It Depends." All of this I think shows independents don't care much for Trump, but also don't care much for the whole field of Democrats. You can compare all of them in questions 18A through 18W. I just don't think independents are looking for or want an established old foggie political hack of a candidate from the Democrats. That's my opinion so far. I think they want a fresh young face ala Obama in 2008, Bill Clinton 1992, Jimmy Carter 1976. None of those three were well known until the primaries began. All three won. Also none of those three were from the Northeast, all from flyover country. I think Democratic Candidates from flyover country have more of an appeal to independents than one from the Northeast. Just something to think about. Old political establishment types from the northeast that lost, Hillary Clinton NY, Kerry, Massachusetts, Dukakis Massachusetts.

I'll have to wait for more numbers to come in and for it to be much closer to the primaries to be sure if my thoughts have any credence.
 
Last edited:
RaleBulgarian said:
Not gonna happen.

And you’re wrong about Trump eating up the other candidates too. Harris, the former CA AG, would absolutely shred Trump. Buttigieg would hit Trump with so much actual knowledge of our government and how it’s supposed to work that Trump would be gobsmacked. Warren (baggage and all) would annihilate Trump with her knowledge, experience, and actual plans vs Trump’s complete fabrications. Sanders would flat out out shout Trump. Booker, and Biden more so, I don’t have much confidence in.
Click to expand...

Harris cant 'shred' her way through a weak field of democrat candidates, so not only would she not 'shred' Trump, shell never get the chance. The Buttigieg star has already crashed to Earth and his odd ramblings about Christianity and the Bible leave me wondering who in the democrat party he is even speaking to. Pious Pete and his zero support from blacks wont make it to the big dance either. I still think Biden gets the nomination in much the same fashion the Hillary did--massive support from black primary voters. Bernie couldnt get a black vote in 2016 to save his life, he wont in 2020 either and I dont see evidence that Warren is making inroads there either. Could be that no one wins the nomination outright, but my money is still on Biden holding on to his mental faculties long enough to squeak by
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yeah guys, let's nominate the person who a highly illiberal Trump-cultist wants us to nominate who also whines and insults us when we ask why. :lamo If you want her to be nominated she's the last person we should.
Click to expand...

No, we want you to nominate Biden. You just havent figured that out yet.
 
As the OP is a water carrier for Rump, I dont see most Dems putting much value in the original post.
 
yankintx said:
As the OP is a water carrier for Rump, I dont see most Dems putting much value in the original post.
Click to expand...

Its actually good that you dont pay attention. You libs just keep plowing forward with Biden :lamo
 
yankintx said:
As the OP is a water carrier for Rump, I dont see most Dems putting much value in the original post.
Click to expand...

Tulsi = Super awesome

:thumbs:
 
The lame excuses from the Adorables is just that lame. I remember when Conservatives at least pretended to be fiscally to the Right. Now with the Debtor in Chief in charge, not a peep about the national debt.
 
yankintx said:
The lame excuses from the Adorables is just that lame. I remember when Conservatives at least pretended to be fiscally to the Right. Now with the Debtor in Chief in charge, not a peep about the national debt.
Click to expand...

Ill give you my perspective on that. I was concerned about the debt for decades. Then Bush doubled it. And Obama doubled it from there. And you know what happened? Nothing. We are $22 trillion in debt and I see no reason to fear that number hitting $23 or $24 or 30 for that matter. Add to that the fact that neither party actually cares about the debt either so there is no reason to worry about it.
 
yankintx said:
As the OP is a water carrier for Rump, I dont see most Dems putting much value in the original post.
Click to expand...
The very same sentiment appeared in post #10. To this American, it seems a rather self-defeating attitude: if any positive expression on the part of any American in support of his/her President is to be discounted out of hand, then the corollary, of course, logically follows, namely, that any negative expression on the part of any American in disparagement of his/her President is to be discounted out of hand as well. Political discourse is over.
 
Why cant the modern GOP just admit what we all know, they dont give a fig about the national debt.
 
smallvoice said:
"Mayor" Pete knows squat about running the Government, Harris is ruined goods, Warren and Sanders really do have too much baggage, Booker is an idiot, and Biden is past his prime...
Click to expand...
^^ Denialist rubbish.

Buttigieg already knows far more about how government runs than Trump will ever be able to comprehend. That fact is abundantly clear to any clear eyed, informed citizen.

Harris, Warren, and Sanders’ “baggage” combined and multiplied 10 times doesn’t equal a small fraction of the rottenness Trump has created or been party to.

Booker is a Rhodes Scholar, whereas Trump, by one of his college professors reckoning “was the dumbest goddam student I ever had”.

You may be correct about Biden though.
 
Tulsi
A Missed Opportunity?

oOHrUb5.jpg
​

“I try to share with people what aloha actually means and how important it is that we do our best to live aloha. When I 'aloha' you, I’m greeting you with an open heart, with respect, with care and love. If we can recognize that we are all interconnected, then we can start the process of setting aside these labels and these differences that unfortunately are often used to tear people apart and pit them against each other. We can transcend that and say, ‘How can we work together?’”

 
smallvoice said:
No worries though, because none of the other candidates will end Trump’s reign.
There, I fixed it for you.
Click to expand...
Isn’t changing another member’s post against the rules?
 
Fletch said:
Harris cant 'shred' her way through a weak field of democrat candidates, so not only would she not 'shred' Trump, shell never get the chance. The Buttigieg star has already crashed to Earth and his odd ramblings about Christianity and the Bible leave me wondering who in the democrat party he is even speaking to. Pious Pete and his zero support from blacks wont make it to the big dance either. I still think Biden gets the nomination in much the same fashion the Hillary did--massive support from black primary voters. Bernie couldnt get a black vote in 2016 to save his life, he wont in 2020 either and I dont see evidence that Warren is making inroads there either. Could be that no one wins the nomination outright, but my money is still on Biden holding on to his mental faculties long enough to squeak by
Click to expand...
^^ A whole lot of underestimating and confusion of facts.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
^^ Denialist rubbish.

Buttigieg already knows far more about how government runs than Trump will ever be able to comprehend. That fact is abundantly clear to any clear eyed, informed citizen.

Harris, Warren, and Sanders’ “baggage” combined and multiplied 10 times doesn’t equal a small fraction of the rottenness Trump has created or been party to.

Booker is a Rhodes Scholar, whereas Trump, by one of his college professors reckoning “was the dumbest goddam student I ever had”.

You may be correct about Biden though.
Click to expand...

Having lived in South Bend, I can tell you you don't know what you are talking about. Petey is a small fish out of water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom