Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
-
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:05 am
- Location: Now Performing Comedic Artist Dusty Balzac Bush Philosopher from Flyblown Gully by the Sea
- Contact:
Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
I'm curious as to who others think would be the best candidate capable of beating Trump for the Democrats. I think that although Hillary Clinton was the wrong candidate it doesn't necessarily mean that a woman candidate cannot defeat Trump.
- Jamiet99uk
- Posts: 32404
- Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
- Location: Durham, UK
- Contact:
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
The Democrats should send him free quadruple cheeseburgers until his heart explodes.
-
- Posts: 4028
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
- Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
- Contact:
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
An odd comment. Of course a female candidate has the potential to beat Trump. A Margaret Thatcher would run rings around him and have him booted out before he knew what was going on. The problem America has is that the Democrats are deep in a crisis of their own making and keep throwing up candidates that are either utterly inept, have no concept of the public mood, or should have retired a decade ago, who then spend years highlighting the inadequacies of each other before serving up the Presidency to the Republicans.MajorMitchell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:07 amI'm curious as to who others think would be the best candidate capable of beating Trump for the Democrats. I think that although Hillary Clinton was the wrong candidate it doesn't necessarily mean that a woman candidate cannot defeat Trump.
-
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:05 am
- Location: Now Performing Comedic Artist Dusty Balzac Bush Philosopher from Flyblown Gully by the Sea
- Contact:
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
I won't pretend to understand domestic politics in the USA, I view it from across the Pacific in the relative safety of the Antipodes. For example I can confuse what I would like in a Democratic candidate & my policy preferences v what do citizens of the USA want in a Dem candidate & policies.
For example I assume that Democrats would prefer to go up against Trump than have Trump impeached/resign and go up against a different Republican candidate.
For example I assume that Democrats would prefer to go up against Trump than have Trump impeached/resign and go up against a different Republican candidate.
-
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:05 am
- Location: Now Performing Comedic Artist Dusty Balzac Bush Philosopher from Flyblown Gully by the Sea
- Contact:
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
I agree Octavious, Margaret Thatcher in her prime years would make a much better national leader than Trump, but she's more suited to the Republican party politically than the Democrats, so if the comparison is with British PMs, then perhaps a 21st century policy form of Tony Blair would be a better fit.. Or as a French comparison, a Latino version of Le Macron ? But there's that underlying assumption, what has appeal in the UK or France will also have appeal in the USA.. is that like assuming what appeals to elites appeals to the general public ?
-
- Posts: 4028
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
- Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
- Contact:
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
A Latino Macron? Macron remains impressively unpopular in France, and only maintains a good reputation overseas. So I guess Macron is exactly the sort of politician the Democrats usually go for.
It's really quite simple, I reckon. All the Democrats need is someone who isn't a radical socialist, isn't an octogenarian, isn't a billionaire, and hasn't spent their political career taking money from dodgy businesses or making one monumental cock-up after an other. Surely there must be one?
It's really quite simple, I reckon. All the Democrats need is someone who isn't a radical socialist, isn't an octogenarian, isn't a billionaire, and hasn't spent their political career taking money from dodgy businesses or making one monumental cock-up after an other. Surely there must be one?
-
- Bronze Donator
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:23 pm
- Location: Long Island, New York, United States of America
- Contact:
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
MajorMitchell wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:07 amI'm curious as to who others think would be the best candidate capable of beating Trump for the Democrats. I think that although Hillary Clinton was the wrong candidate it doesn't necessarily mean that a woman candidate cannot defeat Trump.
Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg or Andrew Yang would probably have the best chance in a general election against Trump. Unfortunately, these three only have a remote chance of clinching the Democratic nomination.
-
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:05 am
- Location: Now Performing Comedic Artist Dusty Balzac Bush Philosopher from Flyblown Gully by the Sea
- Contact:
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
Is a loss in popularity during Government relevant to rating other national Politicians as candidates in the campaigns that they won to become leaders ? Thatcher, Blair lost popular support. Le Macron ran an impressive election campaign and won an impressive victory. If there is just one thing about Le Macron (& Blair?) that I think the Democratic party should seriously consider, and it's mentioned a lot with regard to their current leading candidates..age.
Sanders is, imho, just too old. I saw a brief interview with Mia Love, a former Republican (?) Member of Congress and was most impressed. I also thought that if the Democrats could find their own Mia Love to run against Trump then it would be a most interesting election. As I write this I'm thinking Mia Love for POTUS with Oprah for Vice Presidency fantasy challenge to Trump. Or similar.. pick a ticket that deliberately provokes Trump's racism and sexism and exploits an age difference and intellectual superiority
Age.. I think that frustrates me most about the Democrat's candidates, the leaders in the race are not younger than Trump and this is my bias, I think the Democrats should be bold & go with a candidate at least ten years (or more) younger than Trump
Sanders is, imho, just too old. I saw a brief interview with Mia Love, a former Republican (?) Member of Congress and was most impressed. I also thought that if the Democrats could find their own Mia Love to run against Trump then it would be a most interesting election. As I write this I'm thinking Mia Love for POTUS with Oprah for Vice Presidency fantasy challenge to Trump. Or similar.. pick a ticket that deliberately provokes Trump's racism and sexism and exploits an age difference and intellectual superiority
Age.. I think that frustrates me most about the Democrat's candidates, the leaders in the race are not younger than Trump and this is my bias, I think the Democrats should be bold & go with a candidate at least ten years (or more) younger than Trump
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
The problem is, literally every young dem in the race is just HRC lite, which is a 100% losing bet. The way to beat trump is not more neolib garbage.
-
- Posts: 750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:04 am
- Contact:
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
You no longer have the more middle of the road candidates of either party successfully running for the nomination. Extremist candidates are the new normal. It used to be that candidates would moderate after winning the nomination to get more votes, but now they just pander to a core group and frighten the rest with lies about their opponents.
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
Literally 2016 had HRC, the most Middle of the road candidate ran and lost. Lmfao. People are tired of the neoliberal status quo.
Biden is polling decent and he's basically a republican.2016 is a lesson the democrats must learn from or the party will die.
Biden is polling decent and he's basically a republican.2016 is a lesson the democrats must learn from or the party will die.
-
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:05 am
- Location: Now Performing Comedic Artist Dusty Balzac Bush Philosopher from Flyblown Gully by the Sea
- Contact:
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
@Kimgdroid.. thanks for your contributions, what do you think are those lessons for the Democrats ? HRC wasn't from the left(?) of the Democrats, Sanders represented that side last time and they went with HRC .. if not a moderate this time, then should it be a candidate who can articulate a more progressive candidate set of policies, so go that way, (are there more candidates like that this time & is there more support within the Democratic base for those policies ?) or do the Democrats go to their much more conservative candidate ?.. wouldn't a conservative candidate be less "different" from Trump than a more progressive one. Socialism scares Americans, one policy area where I think the Democrats should go hard is environment/pollution, keep their economic/tax & public health reforms careful and well defined and capitalist loving USA friendly and make environment/pollution action a strong attack weapon ???
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
Well, as i said, HRC is essentially a conservative without thinking gay people should be shot.
What many people seem to misunderstand about american elections, is that we have a highly partisan voter base, but also a highly disengaged voter base. The reason HRC lost in 2016 was not because she was "too socialist" or anything of the sort, it's because she didn't excite the progressive wing of the party, or independent blue collar workers, who either voted for trump or straight up decided not to vote. Remember: Trump LOST the popular vote. Trump only got 2m more votes than romney did in 2012, and romney LOST. WHile Obama got a very high share of blue collar labor votes. What the Dems tried to do (what they always try to do even tho it never works), is to put forward a centrist candidate to "steal Republicans". The issue here is, the republican voter base has been heavily innoculated and propagandized against the dems. They will NEVER vote for a dem, in any significant numbers, based on policy. They do not care about policy, theyc are about voting for a republican.
So, the only way for the dems to win (and they only way they've consistently won, in the past), is to actually appeal to working people, and ESPECIALLY younger people. And amongst working people (union members especially), and young people, "socialism" is not scary. Frankly, Sanders is the only candidate that has the policy proposals that will excite the progressive wing of the democratic party as well as blue collar workers, especially because he's the only truly pro-union candidate in the field, so he has been able to engage voters that were otherwise disenfranchised. ON TOP OF THAT, the President will never get to pass policy on his own, but, sanders (since he's the only one who understands this) has been building a grassroots political movement since he started running in 2016, in order to win seats in congress.
orry if I rambled a lot, i just woke up and kinda word vomitted.
tl;dr centrists bad for dems, progressives good. Most of the dems are fake progressives (because Sanders made those policies mainstream in 2016), and will walk back anything they say in the primary and lose the general.
What many people seem to misunderstand about american elections, is that we have a highly partisan voter base, but also a highly disengaged voter base. The reason HRC lost in 2016 was not because she was "too socialist" or anything of the sort, it's because she didn't excite the progressive wing of the party, or independent blue collar workers, who either voted for trump or straight up decided not to vote. Remember: Trump LOST the popular vote. Trump only got 2m more votes than romney did in 2012, and romney LOST. WHile Obama got a very high share of blue collar labor votes. What the Dems tried to do (what they always try to do even tho it never works), is to put forward a centrist candidate to "steal Republicans". The issue here is, the republican voter base has been heavily innoculated and propagandized against the dems. They will NEVER vote for a dem, in any significant numbers, based on policy. They do not care about policy, theyc are about voting for a republican.
So, the only way for the dems to win (and they only way they've consistently won, in the past), is to actually appeal to working people, and ESPECIALLY younger people. And amongst working people (union members especially), and young people, "socialism" is not scary. Frankly, Sanders is the only candidate that has the policy proposals that will excite the progressive wing of the democratic party as well as blue collar workers, especially because he's the only truly pro-union candidate in the field, so he has been able to engage voters that were otherwise disenfranchised. ON TOP OF THAT, the President will never get to pass policy on his own, but, sanders (since he's the only one who understands this) has been building a grassroots political movement since he started running in 2016, in order to win seats in congress.
orry if I rambled a lot, i just woke up and kinda word vomitted.
tl;dr centrists bad for dems, progressives good. Most of the dems are fake progressives (because Sanders made those policies mainstream in 2016), and will walk back anything they say in the primary and lose the general.
-
- Posts: 750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:04 am
- Contact:
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
Bloomberg has tentatively entered by getting on the Alabama primary ballot before the deadline. He could run as a better version of Trump and with $50 billion from starting from scratch to create businesses without his dad's help he has a more impressive record and money to burn without needing campaign donations.
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
bloomberg will never poll above 2%, mark my words. If you think Trump voters will switch because of him, then you truly do not understand the american electorate, or Trump's voters.
-
- Posts: 750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:04 am
- Contact:
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
It's less about swaying Trump voters, who will follow him over the cliff's edge like lemmings, then uniting the Democrats and getting the independent voters in swing states. Trump won some of the swing states by small margins.
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
Bloomberg will unite independents less than anyone lmao. Nobody in the swing states likes Bloomberg, or even gives a shit what he says. What the swing states want (and what Trump promised and failed to deliver, hence why they're ripe for the flipping) is actual systemic change. Bloomberg does not offer that.
- FlaviusAetius
- Posts: 4368
- Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:15 am
- Contact:
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
Tulsi Gabbard is the least crazy of them all and she actually has some integrity.
-
- Posts: 750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:04 am
- Contact:
Re: Who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump (for the Democrats)
Bloomberg has some advantages:
He's financing his campaign out of his own money like Ross Perot did at the start so no need to fund raise or spending limits. He can spend more than all the candidates and their party PACs combined. This means you won't be able to go anywhere without hearing him.
Without fund raising, Bloomberg is ineligible for the Democratic debates. So he can get out his message without interruption at the debates.
He owns his own media empire so he doesn't need Fox or other media groups.
He's financing his campaign out of his own money like Ross Perot did at the start so no need to fund raise or spending limits. He can spend more than all the candidates and their party PACs combined. This means you won't be able to go anywhere without hearing him.
Without fund raising, Bloomberg is ineligible for the Democratic debates. So he can get out his message without interruption at the debates.
He owns his own media empire so he doesn't need Fox or other media groups.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users