Who will be the Democrats' presidential candidate against Trump?

Sportsczy wants a candidate that protects the status quo. Basically a Hilary, but with a better personality and likability.

There are huge problems in the United States concerning our domestic and foreign policies. Those are issues he doesn't know about or care about. So a continuation of Obama policies he would welcome.

And that is the issue with the dems, it is basically the less republican party. New voices are trying to challenge that.

What the Dems need to determine and decide is if this internal split into the Clintonian establishment and the Sanders progressive is worth risking a 2nd Trump term.

Each of the current Dem candidates are much further to the left than moderate Dem voters are likely comfortable with. Hoping that they hold their nose and vote for one of them to deny Trump a 2nd term is a dangerous game to play with so much at stake.

We accept the fact that in our so-called "democracy" the person who gets the most votes doesn’t necessarily get to become president, or that there are policies the vast majority of Americans want, like universal background checks, that Congress can’t make it happen. pic.twitter.com/Hza1gPgl8a

— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) March 20, 2019

I feel like Pete Buttigieg is the best candidate who's declared so far.

He's extremely intelligent, articulate and progressive. And he just gets it.

He's also religious, young, a veteran and gay. He has such a diverse profile that helps him with understanding the foundational problems in America.

Can see him skyrocketing to the top once the debates starts, because frankly I don't think anyone can match him there from what I've heard.

Freeza wrote:

We accept the fact that in our so-called "democracy" the person who gets the most votes doesn’t necessarily get to become president, or that there are policies the vast majority of Americans want, like universal background checks, that Congress can’t make it happen. pic.twitter.com/Hza1gPgl8a

— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) March 20, 2019

I feel like Pete Buttigieg is the best candidate who's declared so far.

He's extremely intelligent, articulate and progressive. And he just gets it.

He's also religious, young, a veteran and gay. He has such a diverse profile that helps him with understanding the foundational problems in America.

Can see him skyrocketing to the top once the debates starts, because frankly I don't think anyone can match him there from what I've heard.

why would being religious be a stand out point. the last thing you want from a leader is them making decisions that are influenced by religion.

also saying someone is extremely intelligent and religious is a bit of a oxymoron.

I don't see how being religious/spiritual prohibits someone from being considered intelligent, as there's just so much out there, which can't be proven scientifically.

There's different ways to be spiritual. The more I've educated myself, the more I've accepted religion to be honest. There's a place for it.

My comment was also about him being religious to illustrate how diverse his profile is. He's one of the most unique people that run for office in my time certainly. His husband is also a treat to listen to.

Seems like the most genuine person in the race, which should help come primary time. Wish I could donate.

I'm with unique on this, surprisingly. If recent history should've told Americans anything, it is they should elect whoever talks about religion the least.

VivaStPauli wrote:I'm with unique on this, surprisingly. If recent history should've told Americans anything, it is they should elect whoever talks about religion the least.

Well, a counter argument could be that Trump is probably the least religious president ever. So I don’t know if I’d agree with that sentiment.

He still talked about it a bunch, is bunking with Pence, the homophobic Jesus-freak, and carried the evangelical vote. I don't actually believe either Bush was very religious either, they still pretended. That shit has to stop, it's toxic, and leads to this weird moral elitism where you don't have to be moral, you just have to do the most lip-service to one of the religions that can be sold as a moral authority.
And to think it was Jimmy Carter who started this spiral of idiocy... Damn peanut farmer.

But yeah I don't think Trump's a believer, you're right on that.

I also like Mayor Pete quite a bit and I could care less that he's religious. As a liberal democrat candidate, that's probably even a plus for the more moderate voters. I grew up 40 minutes away from South Bend and have family there. It's the epitome of a Midwest city so I respect him for what he's been able to do there so far. I'm in agreement on just about every stance he has and he's looked incredibly poised whenever I've seen him on TV. He doesn't look at all like a candidate with virtually no name recognition and that's heartening. I agree with Freeza in that I think he could very well be the standout at the debates.

Personally I'd be drawn towards atheist politicians more, since that's the religion I personally follow.

I was merely stating the religious part as a plus in his candidacy as it's important for people in the middle in swing states. It makes him a more viable candidate. I feel atheism has a time if the electoral college is eliminated, which it def should be.

Can't wait for the debates. We're in for more political and less personal campaign than last time it seems and I'm all for great debate based on politics.

McLewis wrote:What the Dems need to determine and decide is if this internal split into the Clintonian establishment and the Sanders progressive is worth risking a 2nd Trump term.

Each of the current Dem candidates are much further to the left than moderate Dem voters are likely comfortable with. Hoping that they hold their nose and vote for one of them to deny Trump a 2nd term is a dangerous game to play with so much at stake.

What exactly does establishment Dems offer? They are virtually the more polished version of the republican party.

Their domestic policies are very similar, difference there and there but nothing to move the needle. The establishment dems gave us the failure that is Obamacare, which is arguably the biggest divide between the two party. The Republicans failed to repeal it, and they don't seem to have any intention to change that. So there is that. And also Obamacare initially was a progressive movement, than Dems changed it to the beast that it is today. After the 2008 financial crisis and massive bailout, nothing there to prevent similar financial collapses and put in place safeguards.

Their foreign policy mirrors the repub, both Hilary and Biden supported the Iraq war, both are advocate of more US endless wars and interventions. Chuck Schumer and Pelosi both have not done anything to change US erroneous policies abroad, they have been in the senate and congress for god knows how long.

Rhetorics aside and repub constant movement to the right, there is really little differences between Repub and the establishment dems. They have nothing to offer and bring ideas to the table.

Trump is in power because of the establishment Dems creating the atmosphere for it, he is in the white house due to them. The answer cannot be the people responsible for it.

Since Trump came to power, the past two years they have done nothing to address their weaknesses and a make a self assessment. They have been obsessed with blaming it on Russia, and provide no alternative ideas to move the country. Russia is not the reason Trump won, the reason is the American people contempt for the political establishments.

blue wrote:
Trump is in power because of the establishment Dems creating the atmosphere for it, he is in the white house due to them. The answer cannot be the people responsible for it.

This is Russian Propaganda speak used to divide a nation already in turmoil.

The establishment democrats being perfect progressives wouldnt change the fact that Trump's racist rhetoric drove people in the middle country out to vote for him. In fact, the most establishment guy ever(BIDEN) would have won those states so a hard shift left wouldnt have been the answer.

Trump was elected because of a perfect storm brewing in large part as a correction of middle America coming to grips with the fact that someone they could not see themselves in(Obama) was leading them. It wont happen again, and it certainly wont happen in 2020. no matter who the dems put up, Trump has shot his shot at 2020.

Blue wrote:

McLewis wrote:What the Dems need to determine and decide is if this internal split into the Clintonian establishment and the Sanders progressive is worth risking a 2nd Trump term.

Each of the current Dem candidates are much further to the left than moderate Dem voters are likely comfortable with. Hoping that they hold their nose and vote for one of them to deny Trump a 2nd term is a dangerous game to play with so much at stake.

What exactly does establishment Dems offer? They are virtually the more polished version of the republican party.

Their domestic policies are very similar, difference there and there but nothing to move the needle. The establishment dems gave us the failure that is Obamacare, which is arguably the biggest divide between the two party. The Republicans failed to repeal it, and they don't seem to have any intention to change that. So there is that. And also Obamacare initially was a progressive movement, than Dems changed it to the beast that it is today. After the 2008 financial crisis and massive bailout, nothing there to prevent similar financial collapses and put in place safeguards.

Their foreign policy mirrors the repub, both Hilary and Biden supported the Iraq war, both are advocate of more US endless wars and interventions. Chuck Schumer and Pelosi both have not done anything to change US erroneous policies abroad, they have been in the senate and congress for god knows how long.

Rhetorics aside and repub constant movement to the right, there is really little differences between Repub and the establishment dems. They have nothing to offer and bring ideas to the table.

Trump is in power because of the establishment Dems creating the atmosphere for it, he is in the white house due to them. The answer cannot be the people responsible for it.

Since Trump came to power, the past two years they have done nothing to address their weaknesses and a make a self assessment. They have been obsessed with blaming it on Russia, and provide no alternative ideas to move the country. Russia is not the reason Trump won, the reason is the American people contempt for the political establishments.

I don't really disagree with you on any of this. I'll just add that establishment Republicans also are responsible Trump's election as his base are partially made up of disaffected conservatives who feel the modern day GOP has moved too far to the center.

As for the Dems, yes Obama/Clinton Establishment bloc is pretty much dead center and with maybe a smidge to the left, when it's expedient. However, this is where much of the majority, core Dem base still is. Many of these folks are center-left. They consider themselves Democrats rather than liberals. Many of the 2020 candidates (particularly Biden, Harris, Beto, and Klobouchar) are of the Obama/Clinton school of political thought. They represent a return to the status quo and again, if you're center-left, that's likely what's wanted as it represents a return to something resembling normalcy. Now policy-wise, that normalcy wasn't perfect by any stretch. People suffered and shit didn't get done, but in that world, we had strong allies and were seen as undisputed leaders on the geopolitical stage. I largely see no harm in returning to that, which is why many foreign leaders are urging Biden to run.

However, it should also be acknowledged that the Obama/Clinton era is in its final cycle. The House elections last year heralded the beginning of a new era for the Dems and I believe we'll begin to see that slowly bleed into the Dem ranks within the Senate and at over levels as well over the next decade. Will it be as far left as the Sanders/Warren/AOC school of thought? I'm not so sure, but it will definitely move more to the left and the candidates we see (such as Buttigieg) will be far more progressive. That's encouraging. It's just not going to happen as quickly as we'd like.

Right now, nothing should get in the way of defeating Trump and I don't mean these candidates should spend all of their time talking about him. What they need to do is spend that time talking about how bad his policies have been for this country and what they're going to do to fix it. If that means we need 4-8 more years of Obama/Clinton type establishment Dems like Booker, Harris, Biden etc then so be it. I'll take a return to status quo "politics as usual" under a boring, establishment Dem administration over the bedlam that we're seeing on a daily basis right now every day of the week. 4 more years of Trump will break this country in ways not seen in centuries. I truly believe that.

Biden the frontrunner, Sanders running again who just really is far too old, Beto O'rourke who, sorry, I have to say is a monumental clown, being hyped and raking in huge amounts of money.

The Democrats have a large field of great women, but I fear they will mess this up.

Hapless_Hans wrote:Biden the frontrunner, Sanders running again who just really is far too old, Beto O'rourke who, sorry, I have to say is a monumental clown, being hyped and raking in huge amounts of money.

The Democrats have a large field of great women, but I fear they will mess this up.

I personally don't agree with the great field of women in the Dem party. Elizabeth Warren is truly the only good women candidate, and personally my top pick regardless of gender.


Some like to lump Warren with Sanders, but they actually differ to a large degree fundamentally. Sanders likes to promote socialist programs, while Warren is more interested in fighting crony capitalism. Her concerns is more against monopoly and corruption. An example of differences, is that Sanders promote free college tuition, while Warren looks to combat college costs and create programs that will potentially led to debt free students. Both are progressive, but fundamentally attacks issue differently. There are some overlaps like with Medicare for all obviously and other areas too.

Gillibrand and Harris, i do not trust. Harris tries to promote herself as a progressive, but her long standing positions show she just another establishment pony.

Saw Warren's appearance on Colbert, she did well, and yes, she's a very good politician with a great platform.
Would be thrilled if she got the nomination.

It's awesome to hear how much to the left the whole gravity field has shifted, based on what issues all those candidates want to be identified with.
Of course, not all of them can be trusted to follow through, but Warren and Sanders certainly can.
I also happened to like an interview with that Washington governor, he seems to be actually serious about combating climate change.

The Democrats have a lot of opportunities to take huge steps forward, for the US and all of us in the rest of the world, really, in this campaign.

The only one who would mean a step backward, the only one I'm clearly against being nominated, is Biden, and I'm afraid he'll be winning.

I'd be kind of surprised if it's Biden tbh.

I really like Warren, but I don't have a lot of faith that she would win against Trump. For that reason, it's hard to throw my full weight behind her.

Just checked out Buttigieg for the first time by watching/listening to a bunch of interviews.

It's embarrassing (for everyone else) how much more articulate he is, how much more "presidential", how much smarter, and how much more well intentioned than most other candidates he comes across as.

I don't know some specifics about him still, but so far he seems like he would destroy most rivals in a debate.

rincon wrote:Just checked out Buttigieg for the first time by watching/listening to a bunch of interviews.

It's embarrassing (for everyone else) how much more articulate he is, how much more "presidential", how much smarter, and how much more well intentioned than most other candidates he comes across as.

I don't know some specifics about him still, but so far he seems like he would destroy most rivals in a debate.

Your post contains the problem right there. Too little name recognition, too lightweight a first impression.
Agree though, he's a smart and capable person.

There's a number of really good and smart candidates to choose from.
I hope the field takes this as a opportunity to rise above the usual, terrible, brain-melting routine of the primary rat race.
I would wish so much that they could somehow not just compete, but coordinate, collaborate, build alliances and synergies.

The political system is the problem. The figure of the president is the problem.
It's an over-mythologized, over-hyped, distractive position. There's so much myth-building around this political position, "Mr President", all the movies, TV shows, all the folklore and etiquette, and in the end it is not possible to effect any change, for anyone trying to reach it.

Will be really depressing to see such a promising field of young, smart, ambitious, capable, and well-intentioned people be completely zombified by the process. Just like it was depressing to see candidate Obama become president Obama.

The little name recognition is the problem (didn't even know how to pronounce his last name). His first impression isn't lightweight at all though. A minute or two into an interview it immediately surprised me (I've learned to expect less). He comes across as a great candidate right away.

rincon wrote:The little name recognition is the problem (didn't even know how to pronounce his last name). His first impression isn't lightweight at all though. A minute or two into an interview it immediately surprised me (I've learned to expect less). He comes across as a great candidate right away.

I agree. But when do people actually spend "a minute or two" listening to a candidate?
By first impression, I didn't mean after listening to him, I meant before.


Had a similar experience with the Washington state governor, who's also running, the other day btw.
He was on the Daily Show, he looks like your regular establishment old white man, and the first thing he said was a really bad, lame, pandering nonsense (claimed he watches the show 'every night, I don't go to bed without it', after having said in the sentence before that he 'heard it's a great show').
But after a couple of minutes, I thought he was a genuine, engaged, driven candidate.

I think people are paying way too much attention to this now. Can we not worry about this until the year of the election? It's only March ffs

Fair point BC

Gonna be way more hype this time than usual though because it's a showdown against Trump

Of course BC is right. The whole process is laughably long as it is, but this time all the candidates are getting in so early. Usually the big hitters would only declare in summer or even late fall.

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