| DISCUSSION |
 |
| D:1989 | RBH ( 5212.23 points) | December 16, 2018 02:00am |
John Delaney's playing the long game, aiming to win over supporters of the other bald/balding candidates to move up the ranks here.
|
|
| |
I am a very progressive Democrat. But I am also very torn on 2020. Part of me wants a truly progressive nominee. The other part just wants someone who can defeat Trump. Part of me wants a younger, generational nominee like in 92 and 08, but then part of me just likes Uncle Joe Biden on a very personal level.
|
|
 |
Old Dominion Democrat: Part of me wants a younger, generational nominee like in 92 and 08, but then part of me just likes Uncle Joe Biden on a very personal level.
Nominating a septuagenarian seems like a bad idea no matter who it is. I'm very much in favor of younger more dynamic leadership like O'Rourke, Booker, or Harris.
|
|
 |
Younger does not automatically mean better. I mean take a look at the great Progressive/Populist candidates that have the best chances of beating Trump:
Sanders: 77
Warren: 69
Merkley: 62
Ojeda: 48
Yang: 43
Gabbard: 37
They have a wide age range as compared to the corporate Dems that are all 40 something except for Biden and Bloomberg
|
|
 |
| I:1038 | WA Indy ( 1790.97 points) | December 17, 2018 01:00pm |
Ha! Ojeda. Hahaha!
|
|
| |
Yes Ojeda.
|
|
| |
| D:1989 | RBH ( 5212.23 points) | December 17, 2018 03:41pm |
how many candidates will be polled in the first Iowa poll to include Ojeda?
|
|
| |
E Pluribus Unum: Younger does not automatically mean better. I mean take a look at the great Progressive/Populist candidates that have the best chances of beating Trump:
Being most sincere and progressive is not what will give someone the best chance of beating Trump. Presidential elections are not won or lost based on policy. They are won or lost based on who people would rather see on their TV.
|
|
| |
CA Pol Junkie: <q 9602="">
Nominating a septuagenarian seems like a bad idea no matter who it is. I'm very much in favor of younger more dynamic leadership like O'Rourke, Booker, or Harris.
I get that and can appreciate that. But on the same spectrum, nominating from the O'Rourke/Gillum,/Abrams mold just to come up with only a moral victory Election Night isn't appealing either. (And I love those three candidates may I say).
|
|
| |
The one quality all Democrats are looking for is the hardest to measure: the ability to beat Trump.
|
|
 |
| D:6086 | Jason ( 11889.02 points) | December 18, 2018 11:21am |
My suspicion is that the Democratic nominee will fail to figure out how to beat Trump. The party is in an odd place in that it wants an ardent progressive as its standard-bearer, yet progressives suddenly love economic globalization now, which goes against everything that used to give them strength in the rust belt. It's easy to forecast a nominee who appeals to ethnic identity politics while embracing a corporate Democratic agenda.
If that's the case, Trump can exploit his usual snake-oil salesman approach again when it's easy to paint the Democratic nominee as aloof and out of touch with the common man's economic anxiety. The fact that Trump sold out the working class in yet another NAFTA death sentence won't matter since Democrats don't care enough to call him out on it--or worse, are in agreement with Trump.
|
|
| |
"Globalization" is a misnomer. Nations have to work together in some way, while protecting their own interests. Trump has shown that telling the rest of the world to screw itself just screws ourselves.
|
|
 |
| I:6738 | IndyGeorgia ( 3906.04 points) | January 29, 2019 12:40pm |
Delaney endorsed by Democratic Party chairs of Mills County, Wayne County, and Van Buren County. [Link]
|
|
| |
| R:7114 | Kyle ( 752.36 points) | March 24, 2019 01:53pm |
Not buying this poll and it is irrelevant at this stage in the game. But wow on Buttigieg's number.
|
|
| |
| D:1989 | RBH ( 5212.23 points) | March 24, 2019 01:59pm |
Emerson has always sucked
|
|
 |
| I:9775 | Natalie ( 108.71 points) | March 24, 2019 04:17pm |
Buttigieg has been getting himself out there a lot more lately. I'll admit, he's above Warren now on my list
|
|
| |
| R:7114 | Kyle ( 752.36 points) | August 08, 2019 12:19pm |
Bernie only has a +25 favorable and is in the single digits in Iowa. He is done for.
|
|
| |
Warren is running an excellent campaign and siphoning supporters from Sanders.
|
|
| |
| I:9775 | Natalie ( 108.71 points) | August 10, 2019 11:15pm |
I think Pete is going to win Iowa. Biden's momentum will fade and Pete will take his place in the next few months. It's going to come down to Pete vs. Warren.
|
|
| |
| D:1989 | RBH ( 5212.23 points) | August 12, 2019 12:49pm |
Strategically, is it a better strategy for a Sanders to go heavy for Iowa and hope for a plurality win or to focus more on New Hampshire so you can get at least one W out of IA/NH instead of risking a loss in both if Warren surges in NH as a result of her IA result
|
|
| |
| I:1038 | WA Indy ( 1790.97 points) | August 12, 2019 01:10pm |
Well, if we’re talking expectations games, I’d expect him to do better in NH than Iowa. Though he essentially fought Clinton to a tie in 2016, he got 60% of the vote in NH. I don’t expect him to crush the field but he should, given that result, be able to eek out a plurality win even with Warren being from the same neighborhood. If he’s not top 3 in Iowa and winning NH, he’s got no chance.
|
|
 |
If Warren wins both Iowa and New Hampshire (which is what I expect will happen), then I'm pretty sure Kamala won't be able to stop her. It's not clear any of the other candidates matter, although there are still several months for lighting to possibly strike for Buttigeg, Gabbard, Yang (pretty much in that order of likelihood), or maybe even someone else.*
*definitely not Beto, however
|
|
| |
| I:1038 | WA Indy ( 1790.97 points) | August 12, 2019 10:43pm |
I'm gonna skip over the last part, and say that anyone who wins Iowa AND New Hampshire wins the whole ball game.
|
|
| |
| D:1989 | RBH ( 5212.23 points) | August 13, 2019 03:26pm |
although Sanders in 2016 was very close to sweeping IA/NH and I think the IA result didn't really change things one way of another for the Super Tuesday states. So you'd need to win at least one of IA or NH by a narrow margin to sweep them and not lock it up.
Something like how Santorum won Iowa, but people didn't notice it because it was called way after people were paying attention.
|
|
| |
Is there any hope for Harris ?
|
|
[View Next Page] |