Who will be the Democrats' presidential candidate against Trump?

Unreal how all this time flew by. It feels like Trump was just elected but it's been 2,5 years. wow

Time flies when you're constantly afraid of nuclear armageddon.

VivaStPauli wrote:Time flies when you're constantly afraid of nuclear armageddon.

fear not. trump has kim in his pocket.

I wonder how those who overreacted to Pete Buttgieg first few speeches feel about him right now. He just hired Steve Elmendorf, a Goldman Sachs lobbyist to his campaign. He is Obama 2.0, just another deceitful authoritarian liberal.

The overzealous reaction to his first few presidential candidate introduction is precisely why i hate politics. The vast majority care about the wrong stuff, like how they sound in a interview setting and their personal identify.

Better than hiring a Batman v Superman producer to do the job

Blue wrote:I wonder how those who overreacted to Pete Buttgieg first few speeches feel about him right now. He just hired Steve Elmendorf, a Goldman Sachs lobbyist to his campaign. He is Obama 2.0, just another deceitful authoritarian liberal.

The overzealous reaction to his first few presidential candidate introduction is precisely why i hate politics. The vast majority care about the wrong stuff, like how they sound in a interview setting and their personal identify.

Compared to what we have right now, can you really tell me that an Obama 2.0 is THAT undesirable? I'd take him in a heartbeat.

Nitpicking these candidates to oblivion because they aren't perfect, is not a sound strategy for choosing the best possible one imo.

Have the feeling it will be Bernie

would be absolutely fucking awesome of course, BERNIE SANDERS AS DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE?!?!?! , but still universe-wise it would belong to the alternate one where Trump becomes president and not the one I thought was the one we've been inhabiting all along

Has any of you read Philip Roth's novel The Plot Against America?
I read it last year and have to say it's ingenious, and it's really eery how that novel's alternate history universe seems more like the one that's surrounding us now

McLewis wrote:

Blue wrote:I wonder how those who overreacted to Pete Buttgieg first few speeches feel about him right now. He just hired Steve Elmendorf, a Goldman Sachs lobbyist to his campaign. He is Obama 2.0, just another deceitful authoritarian liberal.

The overzealous reaction to his first few presidential candidate introduction is precisely why i hate politics. The vast majority care about the wrong stuff, like how they sound in a interview setting and their personal identify.

Compared to what we have right now, can you really tell me that an Obama 2.0 is THAT undesirable? I'd take him in a heartbeat.

Nitpicking these candidates to oblivion because they aren't perfect, is not a sound strategy for choosing the best possible one imo.

The problem with Obama 2.0 is that it will push the country more to the right. Buttgieg will not do enough to push back on the policies in place by Trump. Ultimately growing contempt will lead to another Trump like presidency, Buttgieg failure will be seen as failure of liberal/left policy.

I think Warren, Sanders, Yang, and Gabbard are all more interesting and better candidates.

I do agree with Hans i think Sanders will win, believe the same populist forces that pushed Trump presidency will also push Sanders to the white house. The people who supported Trump, got dirt while the never trumpers got huge tax breaks and benefited greatly.

Sanders foxnews appearance was a success, he has a great appeal to the ordinary American.

You're right though, the US quickly needs a shift to the left. The state of what is considered the "center" in America is shocking. Even Obama, a moderate that continued most hawkish policies of the Bush administration is nowadays called a radical leftist by the right. It has to stop.

VivaStPauli wrote:You're right though, the US quickly needs a shift to the left. The state of what is considered the "center" in America is shocking. Even Obama, a moderate that continued most hawkish policies of the Bush administration is nowadays called a radical leftist by the right. It has to stop.

Exactly.
And it can stop only, as you point out, if the Democrats embrace a shift to the left and disregard the doctrine of bipartisanship and moderation within the establishment, which Obama propagated (because he's the kind of moderating personality, perhaps, but also to make up for his 'radical' appearance i.e. his blackness, as in the 'angry black man' being a political non-starter...).
The center is blown, it's been hollowed out by special interests and then pulverized by the moron-fascist right wing shift of the Republicans.

I can not stress enough how much of a philosophical blunder, made for deliberations of 'political capital' no doubt, it was that Obama right after coming into office publicly declared that prosecuting the war criminals of the Bush administration was not the way to go - "look forward, not backwards", which really was an infuriating way to phrase it.
That precedent, which also is mirrored in the fact that no meaningful Wall Street executive was prosecuted after the crash, made it possible for those terrible and provenly criminal forces to return in full force, as a cartoon villain version even.
And guess what, now you have John Bolton as National Security Advisor, when really he should be in jail.
A guy like Steve Mnuchin, embodying the very worst of the predatory practices of Wall Street, is treasure secretary.

Appeasing the American right wing, which is aggressively militaristic, fascist in its approach to policing and civil liberties, unapologetically racist and exploitative towards people of color, kleptocratic i.e. basically just blatantly robbing poor and working people, endangering the very enviromental condition our planet needs to sustain life, is not an option.

They must be fought as hard as we can, there's no compromising on policy substance with these dangerous psychpoaths.

Obama fundamentally failed to understand it, even though it was developing right in front of his eyes.
(I'm disappointed in Obama because I did consider him smart enough to get this. The rest of the Democratic establishment, of course, infinitely worse and more stupid. With people like Schumer, Feinstein or Pelosi all hope is lost.)
As braindead as Trump is, he seems to be more perceptive and smart about the true role of the US president - the "bully pulpit"....

So yeah, I'm excited about the new young Congress(wo)men.

I'm excited about candidates like Warren, Sanders, being considered potential front runners.

The new, energized, forceful US left wing kind of is the hope of the world, these days.

I'm prepared to be bitterly disappointed, again, of course.

Blue wrote:

McLewis wrote:

Blue wrote:I wonder how those who overreacted to Pete Buttgieg first few speeches feel about him right now. He just hired Steve Elmendorf, a Goldman Sachs lobbyist to his campaign. He is Obama 2.0, just another deceitful authoritarian liberal.

The overzealous reaction to his first few presidential candidate introduction is precisely why i hate politics. The vast majority care about the wrong stuff, like how they sound in a interview setting and their personal identify.

Compared to what we have right now, can you really tell me that an Obama 2.0 is THAT undesirable? I'd take him in a heartbeat.

Nitpicking these candidates to oblivion because they aren't perfect, is not a sound strategy for choosing the best possible one imo.

The problem with Obama 2.0 is that it will push the country more to the right. Buttgieg will not do enough to push back on the policies in place by Trump. Ultimately growing contempt will lead to another Trump like presidency, Buttgieg failure will be seen as failure of liberal/left policy.

I think Warren, Sanders, Yang, and Gabbard are all more interesting and better candidates.

I do agree with Hans i think Sanders will win, believe the same populist forces that pushed Trump presidency will also push Sanders to the white house. The people who supported Trump, got dirt while the never trumpers got huge tax breaks and benefited greatly.

Sanders foxnews appearance was a success, he has a great appeal to the ordinary American.

This is quite a well-reasoned post. Can't find anything about it to disagree with.

The jury's still out on who I will support, but I am in agreement that a moderate candidate sounds fine in the immediacy, but in the long run, could get us another Trump.

Like I said though, I won't be as picky this time around with who I back. That's how badly I want Trump out of office. So far every single one of these candidates has at least 1 unlikable thing about them to me. For most, it's small enough where I just don't consider it important enough for it to decide my vote. Only 1, Biden, has something about him (his invading of personal spaces) that truly bothers me and even then if it came down to him or Trump, I'd choose Biden without hesitation.

Right now, I'm not so caught up in who is center and who is left right now. I suspect I will much later down the road though as this field begins to dwindle.

I think the US voters have already moved off the center. Trump wasn't just more extreme than Hillary, he was also the most extreme among the Republican candidates.

The Center has lost it's appeal as it failed to address the issues at hand. Trump won not because he provided (even by any stretch of imagination) any solution; but having positioned himself differently he gave the message that he would do things differently.

Would it be too wrong to say that people view centrism not as the solution but as the problem itself???

Who ever be the president U.S.A's foreign policy was, is and will be extremely right wing and pro war.

So if any U.S citizen is voting for it is for internal policies not for the external affairs.

Adit wrote:Who ever be the president U.S.A's foreign policy was, is and will be extremely right wing and pro war.

So if any U.S citizen is voting for it is for internal policies not for the external affairs.

Doesn't matter whether right wing, extreme right wing, central (probably still communism for americans) or god forbid moderately left president comes in. America's foreign policy will always be pro war.

They are all more or less war criminals.

Let the primary begin

Thats my president

77 years old ffs. Man might drop at any time. Embrace the youth smh.

Myesyats wrote:77 years old ffs. Man might drop at any time. Embrace the youth smh.

Young Kaz wrote:

Let the primary begin

Thats my president

i like his shades

I feel pretty similar to McLewis

I just want Trump out. I don't really care who it is, all of the candidates I've seen so far have things I like and some things I dislike. I just want someone who will win and stop this country from looking so much like a laughing stock.

And as much as I agree with a shift to the left, unfortunately that's just not the US electorate. A couple other notes:

1) Saying that going back to the center will just result in another Trump nominee is...what's the evidence? The sample size in presidential elections is not large and extremely variable. Saying this feels entirely based on the fact that we got Trump after Obama, and who knows if that happens again.

2) Isn't it more important to get Trump out of office sooner rather than worrying about another Trump?

To me, if Dems nominate someone like Bernie or Warren, you're taking a huge risk that we get Trump again in 2020. I say that as someone who likes Bernie and Warren

Warren and Bernie aren't risks compared to Biden.

Their politics are the most populistic possible politics out there. Bernie got loud cheers on god damn Fox News for sharing his economical policies.

I did get to see a Sanders rally recently. It was at a park down the street from me

First presidential rally I've ever been to. Bitterly cold though.

Freeza wrote:Warren and Bernie aren't risks compared to Biden.

Their politics are the most populistic possible politics out there. Bernie got loud cheers on god damn Fox News for sharing his economical policies.

Yeah they are. You think Trump couldn't roll Warren? I like her policies, but Warren is a white female (think of all the Hillary comps, my lord) from Massachusetts, a former academic and current US Senator. She's also got that Native American crap still hanging over her head too.

Unless you're a high information voter and relatively educated, Warren isn't really appealing. Most Americans are not both of those things. Warren looks like an elite, not too far from the archetype that Trump foiled himself with and allowed him to win the Midwest.

Bernie is better but he's got age hanging over his head as well as having to overcome being a "socialist" in a general election. And as I said, the American electorate is not really that excited about Bernie. Biden has comfortably lead Bernie in pretty much every poll even when people had no clue if he was going to run or not

Is elite some sort of slang for a woman who doesn't know her place?

Because I fail to see how Biden is less of a part of the elite than Warren.

And if Warren's native american heritage stuff is the worst thing about her and Trump supposedly can run her around. Then what the hell is the countless stories about Biden not knowing to keep his hands to himself supposed to do?

I don't think Warren has much of chance mainly because of coverage. But I think she's far from Hillary on almost every single point. She's a much better speaker, knows how to connect emotionally, and she knows how to appeal politically to the people who Hillary didn't even bother to campaign for.

Feel Biden running helps Bernie a lot, two people who have been on the opposite side of many major issues. Biden has longed advocated for corporates, wars, and prisoning poor people. While Bernie has been against it.

Myesyats wrote:77 years old ffs. Man might drop at any time. Embrace the youth smh.

Your mortality as a 24 year old non rich guy in a 2nd world country, is probably more of a risk than his as a rich man in the first world if we are being honest.

Betty thinking Poland is Mordor