• 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!

Early 2020 poll

Early 2020 Poll


  • Total voters
    75
This is an early 2020 poll of likely candidates running. Out of them who will you either vote for or feel has the most likely chance of winning?

Pick from the following choices:

  • Donald Trump
  • Joe Biden
  • Bernie Sanders
  • Elizabeth Warren
  • Cory Booker
  • Kamala Harris
  • Mike Pence
  • Michael Avenatti
  • John Kasich
  • Kanye West

John Kasich!
 
Business is like a child. If that business failed the business owner has to learn how to be a better business. Did Sam Walton go seek help when he hit a bad spot? No!

You do understand that it was George W. Bush that passed Tarp right? I can only assume you don't grasp that it was Republican economic policy that ****ed the economy in the first place.
 
This is an early 2020 poll of likely candidates running. Out of them who will you either vote for or feel has the most likely chance of winning?

Pick from the following choices:

  • Donald Trump
  • Joe Biden
  • Bernie Sanders
  • Elizabeth Warren
  • Cory Booker
  • Kamala Harris
  • Mike Pence
  • Michael Avenatti
  • John Kasich
  • Kanye West

Just too early. Didn't vote because a few of your choices aren't even serious, such as Avenatti and Kanye. In addition, it is highly unlikely Pence will be running in 2020, unless Trump isn't in office anymore. You should have included Ted Cruz. In 2016 I didn't vote for Trump in the primaries and wrote in Kasich in the general election. However, bottom line, Trump has actually been doing quite well in office so, if that continues, I could theoretically vote for him in 2020. I have my eyes set on an Independent run by Kasich with Democrat John Hickenlooper as his vice president. That's what the country needs and I would most likely vote for.
 
Bernie isn’t ideal, but he is better than the others on the list. And I assumed this was about the General election. Bernie would still have a tough time winning the Primary. And unfortunately in our system the types of people most likely to win general elections aren’t necessarily the types of people most likely to win primaries. That is how we ended up with the two least popular candidates in US history in our last presidential general election.

His positions and consistency are better than anyone else on the list. That is inarguable. However, I see a problem with your logic. The Republican party opted for the candidate that won the right wing purity test (trump), while Democrats opted for the candidate that represented stability, continuity and White House experience. Normally, you could argue that the Primary is about ideological purity contests, but that only happened on one side here. That said: if the DNC had better gauged the populist sentiment of the nation they may very well have pushed in a different direction. In other words, hindsight has 20/20 vision.

My problem with Sanders is that I'm genuinely concerned he's physically too old. I just don't see how somebody of that age could handle the rigors of the White House. One term? Possibly. Two terms? I just don't see it.
 
Trump has made the country better.

#KAG
It's a no brainer.

Trump's 2017 Top 10 Achievements <<_------ and this was for just 2017
Now we have the chance to have true peace with NK.... and finally we have tax reform.
 
The GOP needs to run a good primary candidate against captain dip****, someone who can wrestle the nomination away.

Unless some serious **** comes out of the Mueller investigation and people believe it, IMO the nomination is Trump's again if he chooses to run.
 
This is an early 2020 poll of likely candidates running. Out of them who will you either vote for or feel has the most likely chance of winning?

Pick from the following choices:

  • Donald Trump
  • Joe Biden
  • Bernie Sanders
  • Elizabeth Warren
  • Cory Booker
  • Kamala Harris
  • Mike Pence
  • Michael Avenatti
  • John Kasich
  • Kanye West

I think Biden's and Sanders's age will be a serious deterrent to them winning the nomination in 2020. Kasich I'd vote for. Booker and Harris I really don't know enough about yet but I'm really hesitant to vote for a "big city" liberal, but of course if it was against Trump or Pence yeah no brainer.

I'm holding out hope our governor will be a black horse in the race, but the "big city" liberals will almost assuredly balk at a democratic governor from a "hick" state.
 
I didn't see your choice.

I won't vote for Trump, so I'm none of the above.

Trump is doing everything the right wants. It remains to be seen if the Democrats will even have a unified message in 2020. I think unless impeached, Trump wins.
 
I think Biden's and Sanders's age will be a serious deterrent to them winning the nomination in 2020. Kasich I'd vote for. Booker and Harris I really don't know enough about yet but I'm really hesitant to vote for a "big city" liberal, but of course if it was against Trump or Pence yeah no brainer.

I'm holding out hope our governor will be a black horse in the race, but the "big city" liberals will almost assuredly balk at a democratic governor from a "hick" state.

Biden seems way more energetic than Bernie per age. Which is why I would vote for Biden if Kasich doesn't run. I also don't support Bernie Sanders' policies whatsoever.
 
His positions and consistency are better than anyone else on the list. That is inarguable. However, I see a problem with your logic. The Republican party opted for the candidate that won the right wing purity test (trump), while Democrats opted for the candidate that represented stability, continuity and White House experience. Normally, you could argue that the Primary is about ideological purity contests, but that only happened on one side here. That said: if the DNC had better gauged the populist sentiment of the nation they may very well have pushed in a different direction. In other words, hindsight has 20/20 vision.

At this point I think it's fairly clear the current Dem brass/leaders care more about retaining power within the party than seizing on populist sentiments/zeitgeist to win elections (nevermind the conflict of interest causing debt obligations of the DNC vis a vis Hillary); this seems readily evident in the DNC's 2017 purge of FDR/Bernie progressives from leadership positions, replacing them with Clinton/Perez supporters and lobbyists, and the stocking of Perez's transition team with just two (2!) Bernie supporters ( https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/tom-perez-dnc-shake-up | https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry...ellison-loyalists_us_59ea6a44e4b0a484d0634a08 | https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry...nsition-committee_us_58cab459e4b0ec9d29d9695f ), including longtime veterans, and repeated/ongoing attempts of the DCCC to sabotage and push out progressive candidates ( The DCCC's Long, Ugly History of Sabotaging Progressives ).

Two particularly egregious incidents of the latter include Dem Minority House whip Steny Hoyer's recent pressure on progressive Levi Tillemann to step down and clear the way for establishment favourite Jim Crow, a corporate lawyer faithfully towing the third way/Clinton Democrat policy lines, ( https://theintercept.com/2018/04/26/steny-hoyer-audio-levi-tillemann/ ) and their attacks on Laura Moser ( https://www.vox.com/2018/3/7/17084808/dccc-laura-moser-texas-democratic-primary-2018 ). The DCCC predictably tries to cover for such ham-fisted interference by sophistically arguing that it is only attempting to pick the most 'viable' candidate, but then continually fails to produce any evidence supporting their claims whatsoever, and moreover, has never sabotaged/hindered a Clinton wing democrat in favour of Bernie-Warren wing candidate.

Overall, said Democrat brass appears to want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to retain power and wagon circle/hedge out Bernie's people while also winning, and seem to think they can coast on enmity against Trump to somehow thread the needle and achieve this; a strategy that has already proven to be dangerous, risky, and, above all, losing (in the case of the DNC I suspect there is also a strong desire to continue obfuscating their budget).

The whole framing of this conflict as being about ideological purity is incorrect at best and dismissively, and deliberately, disingenuous at worst: we already know that FDR progressives tend to poll, on average, better than the third-way/Clinton Dems with the general electorate. This isn't about one faction holding off the plebeians and barbarians at the gate, doing what they must to anoint those with the best chance of winning; rather, it is about that faction trying to retain power at all costs, including at the expense of electoral competitiveness and success.


My problem with Sanders is that I'm genuinely concerned he's physically too old. I just don't see how somebody of that age could handle the rigors of the White House. One term? Possibly. Two terms? I just don't see it.

Now this is an actual, legitimate concern, as energetic and vital for his age as Bernie is.

That said, I'm confident he will pick someone who can faithfully bear his torch should the worst happen, such as Warren.
 
Last edited:
Unless some serious **** comes out of the Mueller investigation and people believe it, IMO the nomination is Trump's again if he chooses to run.

I know. But I can dream, can't I? :lol:
 
Not sure yet. I like Kasich, but I can't support today's GOP in it's current state. It could potentially be years before I ever take that political party seriously again. The Dems are hardly any better, in fact the only reason why they are even any better is because the GOP led by Donald Trump is so mind numbingly awful in every aspect.
 
Goofy Bernie is already showing signs of losing it. He never was a credible candidate in the first place-rather being compared to Hillary made him look better than he actually is.

It's funny that you say this, because that's the only reason why Trump is president. The Reality T.V. Star was never a credible candidate to begin with, and only won the general election because Hillary made him look better than he actually is. Well there may be other factors as well, but I'll wait until the investigation finishes to comment on that...;)
 
It's funny that you say this, because that's the only reason why Trump is president. The Reality T.V. Star was never a credible candidate to begin with, and only won the general election because Hillary made him look better than he actually is. Well there may be other factors as well, but I'll wait until the investigation finishes to comment on that...;)


I think its disgusting that there are Americans who think socialism is a worthwhile system in this nation. Goofy Bernie gets rich off of useful fools who blame their failures in life on "capitalism", "the rich" or "corporations"
 
Not sure yet. I like Kasich, but I can't support today's GOP in it's current state. It could potentially be years before I ever take that political party seriously again. The Dems are hardly any better, in fact the only reason why they are even any better is because the GOP led by Donald Trump is so mind numbingly awful in every aspect.

what exactly has Trump done that objectively harms you?
 
It's funny that you say this, because that's the only reason why Trump is president. The Reality T.V. Star was never a credible candidate to begin with, and only won the general election because Hillary made him look better than he actually is. Well there may be other factors as well, but I'll wait until the investigation finishes to comment on that...;)

yea good luck on the investigation. im sure he'll be impeached...

LOLLL

good luck in 2024 hillary fan
 
I think its disgusting that there are Americans who think socialism is a worthwhile system in this nation. Goofy Bernie gets rich off of useful fools who blame their failures in life on "capitalism", "the rich" or "corporations"

I'd say I'm pretty damn successful in life and I think that the social democracy, not socialism (there's a big difference to anyone not willfully disingenuous/ignorant of their basic definitions), that Bernie represents and champions is indeed a worthwhile system as has been proven the developed world over.

Meanwhile Bernie is basically dirt poor as senators go (not that having wealth in any way precludes you from criticizing egregious economic inequality and the corrupting influence of money in politics as he does), and doesn't appear to have in any way gotten rich off of his supporters.
 
Last edited:
I'd say I'm pretty damn successful in life and I think that the social democracy, not socialism (there's a big difference to anyone not willfully disingenuous/ignorant of their basic definitions), that Bernie represents and champions is indeed a worthwhile system as has been proven the developed world over.

Meanwhile Bernie is basically dirt poor as senators go (not that having wealth in any way precludes you from criticizing egregious economic inequality and the corrupting influence of money in politics as he does), and doesn't appear to have in any way gotten rich off of his supporters.

no one else owes you anything. that is my view. and the constitution doesn't properly permit the government (federal) to take wealth from some to buy the votes of others. any welfare should be state based which has a most effective check upon it
 
no one else owes you anything. that is my view. and the constitution doesn't properly permit the government (federal) to take wealth from some to buy the votes of others. any welfare should be state based which has a most effective check upon it

That's fine; I don't mind a plurality of views on the organization and formation of society.

However, I do note that the federal government does indeed have the constitutional authority to levy taxation and regulation of interstate commerce.

In Bernie's case, I very much doubt that his ideas are tantamount to a cynical bribery scheme to achieve political power for its own sake and his personal benefit, or 'taking wealth of some to buy the votes of others' as you put it; I think he truly believes that what he would like to do is in the best interests of the greatest number of Americans, and I generally agree with him again per the first hand experience of so many other developed countries. I think excess concentrations of wealth are toxic economically, socially and politically, and to date there appears to be plenty of confirmation.

I would like to see the integrity of our democracy restored from the plutocracy it's devolved to since the mid 70s; equality of opportunity ensured for all Americans, and the median and averaged standard of living in America increased to surpass all other countries as it should, rather than being a pathetic, glaring laggard to that of European nations so the wealthiest fraction of a percent can continue to overwhelmingly dictate public policy, and accumulate and sequester away from the economy orders of magnitude more wealth than they'll ever need or even spend.
 
That's fine; I don't mind a plurality of views on the organization and formation of society.

However, I do note that the federal government does indeed have the constitutional authority to levy taxation and regulation of interstate commerce.

In Bernie's case, I very much doubt that his ideas are tantamount to a cynical bribery scheme to achieve political power for its own sake and his personal benefit, or 'taking wealth of some to buy the votes of others' as you put it; I think he truly believes that what he would like to do is in the best interests of the greatest number of Americans, and I generally agree with him again per the first hand experience of so many other developed countries. I think excess concentrations of wealth are toxic economically, socially and politically, and to date there appears to be plenty of confirmation.

I would like to see the integrity of our democracy restored from the plutocracy it's devolved to since the mid 70s; equality of opportunity ensured for all Americans, and the median and averaged standard of living in America increased to surpass all other countries as it should, rather than being a pathetic, glaring laggard to that of European nations so the wealthiest fraction of a percent can continue to overwhelmingly dictate public policy, and accumulate and sequester away from the economy orders of magnitude more wealth than they'll ever need or even spend.
'
I don't agree with much of this but it was a well written and argued post so I liked it. good job
 
'
I don't agree with much of this but it was a well written and argued post so I liked it. good job

Appreciated! By the way, I do agree that state level welfare programs have great promise, and provide for a fascinating breadth of experimentation that is invaluable in helping us determine what works, and what doesn't.
 
Will be intetesting to see who ends up running against Trump. Doubt that person's on this list. Certainly not those first three names. Bernie's a bit old and a bit of a loon. Warren is far too polarizing. Biden is just a dip****. I also wouldn't rule out the DNC shooting itself in the foot by nominating someone like Adam Schiff.
 
no one else owes you anything. that is my view. and the constitution doesn't properly permit the government (federal) to take wealth from some to buy the votes of others. any welfare should be state based which has a most effective check upon it
There are two sides of the same choice before us.

Either regulate capitalism to ensure it's numerous negative side-effects do not cause undue harm, or subsidize the population to ensure an acceptable standard of living.

Personally I think a combination is necessary.

If we do neither, we'll have civil unrest and potentially civil war, eventually.
 
what exactly has Trump done that objectively harms you?

Turtle - seriously? You asked that question of another poster?

What did Hillary Clinton do that objectively harmed you? Or Barack Obama? Or any number of people I've seen you have disdain for over the years?

Puigb is right. Trump is mind numbingly awful. Just because his inner Democrat and decades long opposition to guns (and i know you knew about this) hasn't manifested itself - yet - doesn't mean he's a good President.
 
Turtle - seriously? You asked that question of another poster?

What did Hillary Clinton do that objectively harmed you? Or Barack Obama? Or any number of people I've seen you have disdain for over the years?

Puigb is right. Trump is mind numbingly awful. Just because his inner Democrat and decades long opposition to guns (and i know you knew about this) hasn't manifested itself - yet - doesn't mean he's a good President.

I don't see an answer

what did obama do?

well he raised my taxes
his idiotic health care raised taxes as well and set the precedent for more government intrusion into areas it was never properly delegated the power to act. His two USSC are leftwing anti gun extremists-Sotomayor has already voted against the proper interpretation of the second amendment.

I want the Trump haters to come up with the same specificity.
 
Back
Top Bottom