2020 questions

Here is one for you: who do the Republicans run if this president is not available or willing to run for whatever reason. Let's say President Trump decides to not run; who does? And who do the republicans nominate? And can he/she win? I could not vote for him or her last time and had the same take both times that Obama won. I am a default democrat but am open to voting for a sane republican is someone like K. Harris or B. Sanders got nominated. Who is out there who might appeal to a disaffected dem and who is still acceptable to the president's base?

Any thoughts?

Second question: I keep hearing that O'Rourke is a problem because he lost his last race. What is the problem? Lincoln lost a couple before he won the presidency. My favorite president, Polk, lost a couple of Tennessee gubernatorial bids in the few years leading up to his election and one term presidency in 1844. Both were successful candidates and able executives, whatever else one might think of them.

The democratic field is going to be a crowded field on a muddy track as well as we can determine at present. O'Rourke is not as progressive as some of his admirers think and some of his baggage is not as heavy as some might think. The arrests, for example, might be of some use to him. Whaddaya think?

 

How many of these 2020 Pres threads do we really need?

 

How many of your posts are ever needed?

Don't like it, go to some of the ones you post on 20 times a day for years

 

I have not heard any Dems say that about Beta. If anything, they are fawning over the fact that he almost won a traditionally Red state. I think Beta will be the Dem nominee in 2020 and would probably beat Trump. He's young, likable, charismatic, and good-looking. A lot of women voters will vote for him cause they think he's cute. A lot young guys will vote for him because they would prefer having a beer with him.

 

I agree about Beta in the general. He'd beat Trump. The problem is that I'm not sure he'd win the nomination with the current field. His record is liberal but not hard Left. Furthermore, though he isn't a "fake Mexican" like some have suggested, he is a cultural appropriator. If Castro is in the race, he will exploit the fact that he's the real deal while Beta isn't. And of course, Booker or Harris will capitalize hard on their blackness. The Hispanic and black angles will be played against him. Never forget that the Left doesn't hate racism. They hate conservatives, and they only hate racism when it's helpful or arguably helpful to a conservative. If it's helpful to a leftist, they're all for it.

So Beta might be the choice of moderate Democrats, some young voters who dig the skateboarding, and some sexually unfulfilled women, but the intersectional Left aren't going to be big fans. Neither are the socialist/Bernie fans.

 

Oh he can win these over.

 

In the general, yes. In the primary he'll be up against candidates whose records are much more liberal.

 

Obama gets a 2nd term, and Trump does not, in this scenario. The world is crazy.

 

The world is quite crazy 2nd term of Trump or not; see bathroom issues, girls sports integration (disintegration if you will), etc etc etc. but I understand your comparison.

 

This condition completely excludes the frito bandito, in my opinion.

 

Partisans are big on connecting with the candidate. That will bode well for Beto in the primaries and general. This is what HRC and Jeb Bush struggled mightily with.

 

I lose track of the incredibly clever nicknames used on this sub. Who is the frito bandito and why?

 

Beto O'Rourke. Name calling is so clever and "tough", don't you think?

 

Yet, ridiculing and calling our President names is so cool and hip.

 

Who is doing that? Not me. Not NJLonghorn. Not Crockett. If you want to say you are the equivalent of some liberal millennial extremist then might agree.

Edit: I commented on the Donald Drumpf moniker but that's about it.

Calling Trump supporters "Trumpsters" is hardly "calling our President names".

 

Dude, you called Trump a corrupt *******. I just checked and the comment is still there. Check your posts. As a traditional conservative I'm hardly an extremist. As I said before you MSM libs haven't figured out yet that you're the ones that are the extremists.

 

Here's the quote. Maybe the next time you run your yap and snark at me, Husker maybe you need to get your facts straight. As you told Prodigalhorn you know what this makes you, right?

 

Oh...I thought were referencing "nicknames". Corrupt ******* was a statement of fact. You don't think he's an *******? Mulvaney called him a "terrible human being" which generally falls into the ******* category. Trump has plenty of former administration officials that have called him the equivalent of an *******.

Corrupt? I need to let Mueller's investigation play out. Right now based on public information he's guilty of campaign finance violations (hush money payments) and many other investigations ongoing.

BTW- It's not lost on me that you can find a 1-2 instances of my infractions while avoiding a mountain of behavior on the other side.

 

To be fair, corrupt assh*le could mean anyone in DC.

 

You clearly said "namecalling" ******* is definitely name calling. Quit your ******** spin. Someone's a hypocrite it seems.

 

I jump your case a lot because you try to spin **** when you're wrong just like you did right above. I don't necessarily get along well with Deez or Musburger at times and neither of them are libs.

 

HRC and Jeb struggled with this in recent years. In the '90s, both connected to their respective bases pretty well. I could go into details about why they don't anymore, but I won't derail the thread.

However, I'm not sure that Beto will be able to do it as well in 2020. In 2018, he had no meaningful competition. Basically, the field was clear for the Democratic nomination. It was either Beto or forfeiting the race to Cruz. It's a lot easier to connect with voters when there's no one else for them to listen to or trying to show voters why they shouldn't listen to you. And of course, in the general election campaign, he got gushingly positive media coverage. They couldn't kiss his *** enough.

I'm not saying he isn't good at connecting with voters in general. He clearly is, even if I'm not a fan. The fact that he did better than any Democrat in Texas in 20 years says a lot about that. However, in 2020, he'll be up against candidates in the primary who are also good at that. Furthermore, plenty of Democratic primary voters want ideological purity or close to it and, frankly, don't particularly want a white guy. They'll view that as regression. And of course, the media won't be as favorable to him in a primary as in a general election because their loyalties will be divided.

If it's between Beto and Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and/or Castro, and all three are calling Beto a phony and pointing out his more moderate record and, yes, his whiteness (neither of which he has ever had to deal with to a meaningful extent), it's going to hurt him at least to a degree. And with the media off his jock for a few minutes to get on Harris's, Castro's, or Booker's, his momentum will get blunted.

 

Wait, wait, wait... Are you telling me a guy whose entire campaign was focused around his assumed name "Beto" - that's really just some white boy, son of a wealthy, connected El Paso politician? He's not a hard working, Hispanic guy who pulled himself up by his bootstraps? Wow, who would have thought it? I'm terribly disillusioned now. I might need a safe space for a few days.

 

A good article about problems Beto may have in the primary. Link

 

I think Beto will still be treated with kid gloves during the primary. I would be pleasantly surprised if he gets criticized about anything. He will shed the moderate persona and people will love him.

 

I just don't see Booker, Harris, Castro, and the intersectionality and identity politics freak show that is the modern Democratic Party letting some white guy with a moderate record (by modern standards) and who's a bit of a Johnny-Come-Lately get coronated with the nomination without a fight. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.

If he does get the nomination, sure. They'll lick his balls 24/7 like they did in 2018.

 

I think they will attack each other with venom. They may gang up on Beto if he gains traction like Trump was able to in the primary. I know some long-time Liberals from another web-site that were very bitter about how Obama ripped Hillary during the 2008 campaign. But Obama did what he had to do to win the nomination and his attacks are all on YouTube. Later of course, when it was her turn to be anointed, all was forgiven and Obama's attacks were buried in the sand as suddenly those things didn't mean anything anymore (especially her vote in favor of the Iraq War Resolution which Bernie opposed, giving a very eloquent and rational speech back in the day explaining why).

 

What are Booker, Harris, and Castro going to say? I agree they will do everything they think they can get away with to win the primary. I agree that O'Rourke is the very epitome of white privilege.

The problem is that Beto is not an unknown. If he didn't already have a high visibility campaign I think they attack his cultural appropriation hard. But the narrative has already been set. People around the country have already seen Cruz swing and miss on that issue. The Dems may try to reopen up that can of worms, but all the Dem voters around the country who were impressed with him, gave him money, and saw celebrities and athletes openly campaign, will not all of sudden change their opinion. Just don't see that happening.

Now. If I am wrong. That would be awesome.

 

that's interesting ... and I remember Beto trumping (sts) this "no corporate money"

Yet ... a handful of Universities (including our very own) were HUGE donors ... top 10 in fact.

So, while it may not be "IBM CORP" ... it's hardly John Does contributing, too.

No one seemed to care about that, though. The literal party line was "no corporate money" to the campaign, and that was the end of it.