Jump to content

Democratic Nomination for 2020 - UPDATED to include those who have officially announced


Legaltitan

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, oldschool said:

Steyer is dangerous. He's going to shift the debate to impeachment nonstop. 

I don’t think that will really matter during the primary. Most of the Democratic candidates have already openly said the House should open impeachment hearings.

 

The real question is whose supporters could he steal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Amigo, there has to be a transition that isn’t strictly Medicare for All, regardless of how the bill is written. I’ve supported Medicare for All for a long time now. I still support it. When speaking

I know some people don't want to hear it, but it's going to be Bernie and if it is, he's gonna win. 

Posted Images

3 hours ago, Soxcat said:

 

How about AOC going to the border and outright lying about the conditions and treatment and she was one of only four that did not vote for additional funding to improve the conditions.  These people are scum.  Dishonest crap.  But hey, cling to that as your life boat of ignorance. 

 

AOC lying? You are so full of shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oldschool said:

Steyer is dangerous. He's going to shift the debate to impeachment nonstop. 

Yeah, I'm worried about him making the field as a whole look more extreme. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Current state of the race, per Huffington Post. Biden still the leader, but is on a downward trend. Seems to have stabilized around 27 per RCP. Warren and Harris clearly trending up. Biden, Harris, Sanders, and Warren are the big dogs right now.

 

D-gIs0RXYAAaXWq.jpg:large

 

The debates clearly shook things up and made Warren and Harris look better to people.

 

5d250bd62400009d179350e9.png?ops=scalefi

 

People are clearly thinking Biden is less electable and that Warren and Harris are more electable.

 

5d19f9632400009d17934389.png?ops=scalefi

 

A lot of people are still not sure who they like.

 

Quote

The real front-runner, for now, may still be “undecided.” In the post-debate HuffPost/YouGov survey, fewer than 4 in 10 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said they had even a good idea of whom they planned to vote for. And when a Washington Post/ABC survey asked voters whom they supported without giving them a list of names to work from, the runaway winner was a demurral: 41% said they didn’t have anyone specific in mind. None of the actual candidates polled above 21%.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been my impression. Most of the big wigs in the party would be fine with anyone other than Bernie. 
 

Ironically this will only make Bernie more appealing to anyone wanting “real” change or an anti-establishment candidate  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Titans279 said:

This has been my impression. Most of the big wigs in the party would be fine with anyone other than Bernie. 
 

Ironically this will only make Bernie more appealing to anyone wanting “real” change or an anti-establishment candidate  

 

Bernie isn't a democrat.... He shouldn't even be allowed to run for the party nomination without joining it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, oldschool said:

Bernie isn't a democrat.... He shouldn't even be allowed to run for the party nomination without joining it.

He did have to "pledge fealty" to the Democratic Party in a ceremony and stuff with the DNC right? hah. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s probably a good idea. DHS is too big for its own good. It should be broken back up and some of the sub agencies reformed. There’s pretty much no person alive who is actually qualified or able to really be the head of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Titans279 said:

It’s probably a good idea. DHS is too big for its own good. It should be broken back up and some of the sub agencies reformed. There’s pretty much no person alive who is actually qualified or able to really be the head of it. 

Oh come on. Total losing position politically, sounds totally weak. 

 

I can understand wanting to do away with ICE, although I disagree, but no need to do away with DHS as a whole and break it back up into smaller independent agencies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah usually I base my opinions on more than what sounds good as a surface level analysis. 

When AOC, Vox, and Reason agree you might approaching a consensus!

https://www.vox.com/2015/2/17/8047461/dhs-problems

 

Quote

[T]he nonchalance with which both parties are treating the prospect of a Department of Homeland Security shutdown raises a big policy question: why does the department even exist?


The answer is that it shouldn't, and it never should have. DHS was a mistake to begin with. Instead of solving the coordination problems it was supposed to solve, it simply duplicated efforts already happening in other federal departments. And attempts to control and distinguish the department have politicized it to the point where it can't function smoothly — and might be threatening national security.
 

This isn't to say that DHS should be fully liquidated. The argument is there's no reason for it to exist as its own department when it can be reabsorbed into the various departments (from Justice to Treasury) from which it was assembled.

 

https://reason.com/2015/06/23/president-bush-was-right-before-he-was-w/


 

Quote

The new department largely consists of agencies and offices pulled from other existing cabinet departments. After twelve years of mediocre-to-poor operations and countless scandals, it is clear President Bush's initial instinct was right. The core functions overseen by DHS can be managed more effectively elsewhere, especially where territorial battles undermine operational efficacy.


It is time to eliminate DHS and put the various components where they are a better fit. Eliminating DHS would result in annual fiscal savings of more than $2.5 billion, with 4,000 fewer employees. Those reductions, however, only represent part of the rationale for eliminating DHS. The other reasons to do so are that DHS is riddled with performance inefficiencies and that its existence creates inefficiencies in other federal entities due to the need to coordinate across organizational boundaries. America can't afford more of the same as terrorist threats reemerge.

Pretty good takes IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...