Who will be the Democrats' presidential candidate against Trump?

76 is too old, sorry. This should not happen.
My dad is that old and he's barely able to find his jacket again after taking it off, never mind run a country or a presidential campaign.

Biden is old and creepy. And despite his politics being fine he’s not the best candidate in any way.

To suggest he is sounds like the ramblings of an ancient white man.

Also Bernie Sanders isn’t liberal. Why have Americans started using liberals as a term for social democrats, when they’re on the opposite side of the isle in every other nation. He’s also way too old and a huge hypocrite. His supporters are also idiots who continually miss the point.

Their best choice is to go with someone like Kamala, and give her a younger VP to run with. She’s moderate and a progressive right hand man would make most sense in an election.

To go all moderate would be to ignore that their biggest gains this midterm have been the progressives.

It's an annoying part of American politics, feel like true liberals should take the label back now that the American left is moving to 'progressive'. I think it dates back to FDR using the word liberal (meant mostly in it's social policies definition).

It also annoys me how Sanders calls himself a socialist when he is a social democrat.

Freeza wrote:
Also Bernie Sanders isn’t liberal. Why have Americans started using liberals as a term for social democrats, when they’re on the opposite side of the isle in every other nation.

Yeah I know, been making this complaint many times before in my life when I met Americans, since for example the 'liberals' in Germany are somewhat right-of center free market economics proponents, more like what might be called 'libertarian' in US.

But ultimately, makes no sense to complain since quite simply the word has had a different meaning in US for a long time and all that's left to do is be aware of the difference.

Sanders is a socialist and his ideas are ridiculous.

Kamala...  just no.  She's awful.  I would vote Trjmp over her too.

The scary thing is that unless the Democrats bring forth a viable candidate, they'll lose.  I'm  joking that I would vote for Trump...  ever.  But I'd abstain from voting if neither candidate was viable.

I voted for Hillary despite really not liking her either...  because she was viable and Trump is a douche.

Biden is viable.  Maybe a dark horse like Obama shows up...  but dems need to make it an easy vote for their candidate.

Why do you think Sanders ideas are ridiculous? Particularly his social issues hold a lot of weight for me.

Sanders is not a socialist.

we also tried being moderate with Hiliary. Didn't work. If republicans won't compromise their ideals, why should we?

FennecFox7 wrote:we also tried being moderate with Hiliary. Didn't work. If republicans won't compromise their ideals, why should we?

Sports is a conservative and wants republicans to win so he keeps suggesting worst possible candidates.

I would want Beto. No need to try to be bipartisan and reach across the isle when the other side is racist buffoons who are t willing to work together on anything.

The reason Trump won is because Hillary essentially is a Republican and progressives didn’t want to engage and turn up for her. Why pick another ultra conservative “Democrat” and expect a different outcome. That’s just insanity.

FennecFox7 wrote:we also tried being moderate with Hiliary. Didn't work. If republicans won't compromise their ideals, why should we?

Hillary was the most unpopular politican the dems have ever nominated for president, and a terrible candidate. She didn't lose because she's a moderate, she lost because she's Hillary.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Harris and Booker I'll give you (although I see nothing special about Booker), but Beto [smiley]https://2img.net/i/fa/i/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/smiley]

Come on man, the guy is a just a state congressman, did a great job in the race for senator and can write a decent speech, but would be the most unprepared president ever. Completely unqualified to even present himself at the race.

Still, it might be tone deaf but that doesn't mean that it would be unwise, democrats lost the working class midwestern men to Trump, which is exactly where someone like Biden would be able to turn that around.

I don't know man, we have a reality TV star as president right now. The measuring stick for who's prepared has changed entirely. No experience is fully on the table right now.

As for Biden, I think the Milennial vote is more important at this point. He won't energize them the same way the others (especially Sanders) could unless he's willing to go more to the left, which I don't think he is.

Gillibrand is the answer IMO

but I guess she's a bit too toned-down

Gillibrand's ties to the Clintons are rather well known and would be used mercilessly against her if she ran by the GOP and right. To be a successsful candidate, she'd either need to fully embrace those links and hope the supporters who voted for Hillary get behind her or aggressively distance herself from the Clintons and hope those same voters get behind her as well. Both paths are wrought with peril for her, though she could try both embracing and distancing at the same time, which would be the most politician thing to do. Beyond that, I think she'd be a good, if vanilla, candidate. She's not someone that excites or energizes, another thing she has in common with Hillary unfortunately.

Also - Someone mentioned Caroline Kennedy (daughter of JFK) and elsewhere I've also heard mentioned of Rep. Joe Kennedy III (grandson of RFK). It's been a while (Ted Kennedy was the last, I believe) since there's a been a Kennedy in a position of prominence in the political landscape. Other than as Ambassador to Japan under Obama, Caroline has never held public office. She almost ran for Hillary's vacant seat, but pulled out and Gillibrand got it instead. It would be quite a surprise if she decided to make such an unexpected step, but as I said before, political experience as a prerequisite for being President went out the window with Trump so anything is possible.

Joe Kennedy has made all of the right moves indicating that he will likely be his family's next representative in American politics. At 38, he's still pretty young and I would think his next move is a senate seat. Elizabeth Warren (who taught one of his classes at Harvard) is pushing 70 and Ed Markey, the other Dem senator from Massachusetts is 72 so he probably have few more terms to wait. He's a name to keep an eye on though for the future. It would not surprise me at all if not only is a candidate, but wins the presidency in the future.

McLewis wrote:

I don't know man, we have a reality TV star as president right now. The measuring stick for who's prepared has changed entirely. No experience is fully on the table right now..

Seems like you are arguing for a race to the bottom to me

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

McLewis wrote:

I don't know man, we have a reality TV star as president right now. The measuring stick for who's prepared has changed entirely. No experience is fully on the table right now..

Seems like you are arguing for a race to the bottom to me

That was more an observation than an argument honestly.

Ideally for me, someone running for president needs to have some political experience. How much and in what capacity is debatable, but I hope what we're going through with Trump right now dispels the notion that literally anyone can be a good president without having political experience. It's patently absurd.

This is why I think that Beto, despite having only 5 years of experience in the House is experienced enough to run if he wants to in 2020. Harris, Gillibrand and Booker are all also experienced enough due to their time in the Senate. Trump has done nothing politically prior to winning in 2016 other than be a donor and birther. That was both a source of profound exhilaration for a lot of people, but also a cause for a profound amount of concern for many others too. I guess it signaled that you didn't have to become a career politician in order to actually get to the White House. An intoxicating notion, but ultimately one that is incompatible with reality, which is you need to know how the political system works in and out before having the know-how to run this country. That experience comes from being a a multi-term Governor or multiple-terms in Congress, usually. It's harder to gain as a private citizen.

FennecFox7 wrote:Why do you think Sanders ideas are ridiculous? Particularly his social issues hold a lot of weight for me.

It can't work in the US.  It's all about big government, higher taxes, tax the rich, etc.  It's impossible.

70% of what he's proposing have similar instances in France.  Look how well it's worked here.

In any case, if Sanders is the democrat rep, exactly ZERO conservative and 80% of the moderates would vote against him.  On top of that, even with Trump, you would get many democrat defectors.  Reason?  Any business owner or professional would run in the other direction.

I'm a fiscal conservative and moderate everywhere else.  Voted democrat in every presidential race starting in Bill Clinton's second term.  I did vote republican before that.

But it had nothing to do with party.  It's about the person and the policies.  Republicans are too extreme today.  A lot of democrats are too honestly.

It's a big shame what's going on in the US.  It used to be that candidates would talk a big game during elections and they would all move to the center once elected.  So in the end, government worked well enough.  Because of how society has evolved in the US, everything is polarized and there's very little tolerance + debate. It all started during the Gore/Bush campaign... that Florida count was the start of all this nonsense.

The rich don't even pay their taxes, to start off with. Many of them store their money in off shore accounts. Is it really that big of a deal to ask the rich to pay their part? France is way too far to the left, but the USA or Sanders for that matter is not advocating any of that nonsense like a 75% tax rate. False equivalence.

Universal Health Care, 15$ an hour are all doable. We spend tons on our defense budget, excessive corporate tax breaks. You say you don't want big government, but yet conservatives are fine with it when it comes to business bail outs and protecting the rich. that's hypocritical. I come from a wealthy family and we know it's not the right thing to do.

If trickle down benefitted a developed economy in any way, then sure, let's try it out. but every single recession has happened due to republican and conservative fiscal policies. It's obsolete for first world countries. I agree you need a balance though. But no one is saying we are going to be a socialist country and no offense but it's pretty ignorant to compare USA progressives and European progressives.

Not to mention issues such as climate change, social issues, abortion, these are just as important

That's the thinking that sunk France and other countries.  The US's biggest competitive advantage is that it has one of the lowest tax rates.  The idea is to tax 25% on a tax base of $100 billion as opposed to 50% on a tax base of $1 billion.  The net influx on money is more, which is what matters.  Not to mention the intangible economic benefit of having people with a lot of money buy things, which boosts the economy and they pay sales tax, property tax, etc. which makes up for the lower income tax rate and then some.

This "tax the rich" concept is beyond dumb.  They won't pay.  They'll just leave.  It's actually that simple.  And it's the big reason the US has accumulated so much wealth over the decades... we're a tax and legal haven.

As an example... my family and I have our money in the US right now.  If the tax rate goes up and I have no reason to keep it there, I'll move it to a more favorable location.  

Same thing is happening with states.  Places like Texas, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, etc. have zero state income tax on companies or individuals.  So companies were moving their headquarters out of California and NY, with high tax rates, to more favorable states.  As a result, NY, NJ, etc. offered tax breaks for companies that do move to their states... so in essence they have a high state tax rate; but then are forced to give incentives to negate that tax in order to compete.  All it does it create more paperwork for the state and it cost them money.   It's a net loss as opposed to not having the tax in the first place

sportsczy wrote:That's the thinking that sunk France and other countries.  The US's biggest competitive advantage is that it has one of the lowest tax rates.  The idea is to tax 25% on a tax base of $100 billion as opposed to 50% on a tax base of $1 billion.  The net influx on money is more, which is what matters.  Not to mention the intangible economic benefit of having people with a lot of money buy things, which boosts the economy and they pay sales tax, property tax, etc. which makes up for the lower income tax rate and then some.

This "tax the rich" concept is beyond dumb.  They won't pay.  They'll just leave.  It's actually that simple.  And it's the big reason the US has accumulated so much wealth over the decades... we're a tax and legal haven.

As an example... my family and I have our money in the US right now.  If the tax rate goes up and I have no reason to keep it there, I'll move it to a more favorable location.  

Same thing is happening with states.  Places like Texas, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, etc. have zero state income tax on companies or individuals.  So companies were moving their headquarters out of California and NY, with high tax rates, to more favorable states.  As a result, NY, NJ, etc. offered tax breaks for companies that do move to their states... so in essence they have a high state tax rate; but then are forced to give incentives to negate that tax in order to compete.  All it does it create more paperwork for the state and it cost them money.   It's a net loss as opposed to not having the tax in the first place

so you are a immigrant that went to america to take advantage of all the good things you can squeeze out of it but you dont want to pay for any of it. no wonder you hate trump his speeches are about you.

Dear god.

I pay and have paid my taxes and then some.  I've built companies and hired hundreds of people, who in turn have paid their taxes.  

I'll add that Trump is the king of manipulating his money.  That's why he doesn't want to release his tax returns.  80% of his wealth is stashed in tax havens around the world (a ton in Panama in fact).  It's all legal and I personally have no problem with it... I'm just pointing out your ignorance.

sportsczy wrote:Dear god.

I pay and have paid my taxes and then some.  I've built companies and hired hundreds of people, who in turn have paid their taxes.  

I'll add that Trump is the king of manipulating his money.  That's why he doesn't want to release his tax returns.  80% of his wealth is stashed in tax havens around the world (a ton in Panama in fact).  It's all legal and I personally have no problem with it... I'm just pointing out your ignorance.

dude I’m just playing with you. I don’t think for one minute you are a immigrant tax dodging leach.

You know who is forced to NOT pay taxes (and they would in a second if the could)... the working illegal immigrants in the US. Legalize them and let them pay taxes. Do you have leaches and criminals in that bunch? Of course. But actually far less than other segments of the US population in terms of ratio because they're terrified to get deported.

That's why that line of reasoning is pure populism and completely devoid of logic and fact.

sportsczy wrote:Not to mention the intangible economic benefit of having people with a lot of money buy things, which boosts the economy and they pay sales tax, property tax, etc. which makes up for the lower income tax rate and then some.
]

That's basically trickle down economics, right? The much vaunted and lauded economic plan of the Reagan era?

It seems to me that intangible benefit has been felt less and less since that school of thought came to prominence. The rich are as famous for not spending their money as predicted as they are spending it. And when they do, it is hardly for the benefit of the poor. When Trump decided to cut taxes, the thinking was that the wealthy and the corporations would use that extra money to hire more workers to increase production and profit. Win-win for everyone right? Well instead, and many CFOs directly or indirectly have admitted this, most companies used that extra money to pay off their own debts, reward their employees with bonuses (not inherently a bad thing at all) or buyback stocks. What they didn't do is hire more people or boost the salaries of the existing workers employed with them, 2 things Trump stupidly promised would come out of these tax cuts. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for trickle-down economics.

I think it's foolish to trust that the wealthy will spend their money in a way that benefits everyone, including them when they'd much prefer to have all of the benefit themselves.

sportsczy wrote:You know who is forced to NOT pay taxes (and they would in a second if the could)...  the working illegal immigrants in the US.  Legalize them and let them pay taxes.  Do you have leaches and criminals in that bunch?  Of course.  But actually far less than other segments of the US population in terms of ratio because they're terrified to get deported.

That's why that line of reasoning is pure populism and completely devoid of logic and fact.

dude i told you i was just messing around with you everyone would get out of paying tax if they could. nobody likes paying tax. i dont blame you for dodging tax

I don't mean in that extreme case McLewis.  Trickle down in the sense that entrepreneurs and small/medium businesses need investment (big portion of which happens through VC/PE/Angel/Family Office) + banks making loans play a huge part in that process.

Wealthy people aren't charities.... nor should they be.  They made money and want to make more.  The incentive it to make them put their money into the economy by offering a good fiscal structure and good returns.  

I actually am more a demand-side person...  create an environment where there's huge demand for investment opportunities by creating the best structure possible for people to invest.  When money competes with money for deals, entrepreneurship thrives (a lot of deals get done at good rates).

When you take money out of the pot and you have less money competing for deals, then entrepreneurship tanks (deal flow goes down and money becomes expensive).

Bigger government by increasing taxes is the absolute worst answer possible and has always failed... almost everywhere except for some small countries.

Just my two cents.