Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by lechnerd, Jan 10, 2019.
I really hope it’s Beto:
or Elizabeth Warren:
Do you mean nominee? Because all of them could be candidates.
Fixed. Can’t fix the polling though.
Maybe I’ll call Russia!
AOC won't be old enough
Warren seems the best imo of your list.
The retards in the party like Lyrtch will complain because it’s not some weirdo like Bernie or Warren but eventually they’ll get in line
It's way to early for anyone to have an informed opinion on this
It’ll be Warren/Beto or Warren/Harris ticket
Wildcard: Sherrod Brown
Well GTFO here then
I took the field.
Okay see ya
i voted for "other candidate" but that was only because dwayne the rock johnson wasnt an option
posted simultaneously i like the way this man (who is NOT my alt account) thinks
Warren is one of the few who has a clue, out of that bunch. Beto seems ok, I'd vote for him.
But this is the Democratic Party, their leaders are corrupt and their base is spineless, so they'll probably wind up with some compromise, corporate-insider, on the basis of what they consider "electable." That's how we ended up with the Clintons. And that's why I picked Biden : he's their sort of guy.
Your Mom if I let her lmbo
Fuck this is so true
"Warren is like Sanders" is the 2020 version of "Hillary is electable."
It's total bullshit, yet it's widely repeated, and the people who say it just assume that everyone else should agree.
They should nominate no one and put eliminating the presidency on the official party platform
The one I think the Republicans should be most afraid of is Biden. The Dems will fuck it up an run Warren though.
This is the best evidence I've seen yet that Biden would be a terrible choice
Eh, I thought Hillary was a terrible choice. I didn't predict fucking Trump would beat her, but I knew she was an awful choice.
What does that have to do with Elizabeth Warren?
She's a woman?
Because they are eons apart from a policy standpoint.
Would be excited about: Harris, Beto, Klobuchar, Booker
Meh: Biden, Hillary, Bernie, Warren
ehhhh no it has to do with my ability to determine whether or not a candidate sucks. I thought Bernie woudl have been an awful choice too, and he identifies as male.
Yeah but that's not a real thing. I don't think anybody cares about make-believe riner land.
This would have been a better poll if you asked people who they WANT to be the democratic nominee.
At least that would have been an accurate representation of who people on TMB support. But as it stands now people are just bloviating and throwing darts predicting who will actually become the nominee.
You don't have to "care", and I don't "care" if you care. The evidence speaks for itself. I'm 1-0 in predicting what an awful candidate someone is. The real thing is that I was right, Hillary was a terrible candidate to run. Fuck with me, son.
A sample size of one isn't evidence of anything.
It's evidence of being right about that. Did you think Hillary was a good candidate?
It won't happen but I wouldn't mind Doug Jones.
“It’ll be different this time, baby”-
No. And that's because she brought almost nothing to the table from a progressive standpoint in order to get young people and progressives excited to get out and vote for her. The same cannot be said for Warren.
If Trump wins again give me Gavin Newsom in 2024. Too soon for him to run in 2020; but I would vote for him
Well I've heard that a sample size of one isn't evidence of anything, so I can't put much weight into your opinion
That doesn't make any sense
yea, that's kinda what I thought too
i heard a comment on an old c-span rerun recently, dated from the late 80's, from Christopher Hitchens (who was a British democratic socialist)
"It is widely known that the people who run the Democratic Party would rather lose the general election, than have 'their guy' lose the primaries."
i think he nailed it, and 30 years later it's just as accurate.
Then why did you post it?
There aren’t superdelegates this time around though.
Hmmm, never heard of him
I don't know that this was the singular cause, though.
I think he was suggesting that the root cause of this anti-democratic behavior went very deep, and had quite a bit to do with pro-establishment influence from the media (specifically wapo and nyt), and a belief among the party leadership that the party's voters couldn't be trusted (intellectually speaking) to make these kinds of decisions.
You seemed to think it made sense, since you said it. I thought I was helping you.
Oh, it definitely made sense in response to your claim that you definitively know when someone is a bad candidate because Hillary lost that one time.
It made no sense in response to my post.
Hope that helps you.