Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

You'll have to speak for yourself. I very much like one of the two candidates still running (poll numbers rolling avg. still climbing but won't get the altitude before running out of runway. Bamz 'night of the long knives did enough damage at the right time. Should get him invited vack to Branson island. Maybe an infinity pool in his house on Martha's Vineyard.

Sanders just won Utah by the way.

The other guy is having some real cognitive issues. They'll announce a replacement. Maybe over health reasons? 'Thanks for voting. Were going in a different direction' sort of thing.

I did vote for Sanders in the California primary, but I still consider him deeply flawed in terms of getting independents to vote for him. The reason I bring up Cuomo now is that he seems to be the voice of reason for many people on the internet, as opposed to Trump's ravings.

One of the best things we could do right now is stop listening to the ravings of a mad man. He's leading his followers right over a cliff.

Apparently I've flunked a great many purity tests despite also voting for the man. I can't do much more than vote for him.

My first choice was John Hickenlooper, the Governor of Colorado. But he dropped out pretty quickly. He will be going to Washington in January as Senator Hickenlooper as he will Defeat Gardner fairly easy.

If you follow numbers, I think you'd find the progressive wing makes up between 30-35% of the Democratic Party. The rest are much more moderate which this primary season has shown.

And yes, first you must be able to win an election in order to get anything at all accomplished. In order to win one must not only be able to attract Democrats, but independents and some Republicans. Nominating an ideological pure candidate from the progressive wing has many obstacles to overcome that someone, say from the center left doesn't. The Republicans tried the ideological pure candidate back in 1964 with Goldwater, we all know the results from that.

As for a woman, I have no doubt a woman can win the presidency. But it depends on who that woman is. Hillary came across as aloof, an elitist and I'll add my own word as I viewed her, fake. She was also lazy and ran a very inept campaign and still won the popular vote.

She also lost the independent vote. It doesn't matter whether your candidate is a man or a woman, whoever it is must be able to attract the independent voter. With both major parties shrinking, independents rising, choosing a candidate attractive to independents is of utmost importance. In 2006 independents made up 30% of the electorate, today they make up 40% give or take a point or two. That is if one believes Gallup and Pew Research.

Of course I'm not very ideological, so I'm more interested in finding a candidate that can win than one who is ideological pure. Little steps forward are fine with me, as long as we keep moving forward. Nominating someone who promises gigantic leaps forward, usually can't win and loses in Goldwater fashion. Then even little steps forward cease.

I've been saying for a couple of years now that this election cycle that the Democrats needed a fresh young face, if from flyover country so much the better. Now we ended up with two 78 year old white men which it seems no one is happy with except their avid supporters.

That's my two cents anyway.

Does Biden have an avid supporter?

Biden has dropped the names of several possible running mates and hasn't mentioned Abrams. Nevada Senator Cortez Masto was just mentioned and she comes with Harry Reid's recommendation...that's good enough for me!

LOL, well, avid supporters? I would say so in the black community. Of course all I'm going by is polls since December which showed Biden the first choice among blacks at an average of 55%. I suppose that can be interpreted differently by different folks.

Numbers wise, getting to 270, Masto doesn't help there. Nevada is going Democratic whoever is VP. Although Masto does bring regional balance and an Hispanic aboard the ticket. She could help in states with a large Hispanic population. Texas and Arizona comes to mind. How much, I'd have to do more research.

Numbers wise, the best bet is the trio of Midwestern Women, Klobuchar, Baldwin and Whitmer. All three could deliver their state. Abrams, I still think lack of experience, not having held any statewide office or any mayorship. Although I still think she'd give Biden a 50-50 shot at Georgia where as the other three Midwestern woman would guarantee their state goes Democratic. At least in my mind.

Biden's only real strength is he's seen as the most electable. The one with the best chance of defeating Trump. Perhaps one could say Biden's less avid, enthusiastic voters have swamped the very avid, highly enthusiastic Sanders voters.

If Biden wins and then dies or resigns immediately, the VP is very likely going to be much more of a driving force. Even if he doesn't, VP's can be given a lot of duties while the President just signs the bills his advisers tell him to sign. Just look at Cheney or George HW Bush. I do not see even a lame Biden doing the actively destructive things Trump has done.

Just gunna mention nobody’s brought up recent sexual harassment allegations against Joe Biden.

I hope to see the righteous indignation from the Warren camp. Hate to think all the misogyny bernie bro talk was simply politically weaponized gender politics...

I would suggest your study on opensecrets.org There you will find where all the politicians get their money. To simply say its corporations would be wrong. Those giving/taking/running are a diverse group of whatevers. Individuals and corporations and NGO's, etc.

My own thought is that the problem is not so much the bribery and corruption but the politician him/her self. Some are stalwart and determined to do the job and others consider the job to get as much as fast as they can and then move on to 'senior' status of the perceived wise.

Lobbying is how our leaders formalized bribery and corruption, as far as I am concerned. I have always found that pretty interesting. If an elected, however, decides to go outside of this system they do get crucified big time by their colleagues. That doesn't happen often, but it does happen. I have also found how the elected deal with the treasure is also interesting. I think it usually ends up in some kind of non-profit trust run by family and supports said family for years.

Your argument avoids the gross amounts of lobby money that is being spent by corporations. Not to mention political PAC contributions.

If your saying that formal bribery is a feature of corporations and the onus is on representatives, I would argue that boughten politicians are a feature of capitalism and the onus is on citizens.

Without any real political mechanism to change that government capture from Mr Market, I don’t see any alternative left but full on kleptocracy.

Whoops!... wait a minute...