democrat candidates are 2020 unelectable nonentities

[agrarian]

The Democrat field is attracting lots of attention because many view President Trump as vulnerable. Just as the Republicans had a massive field in 2016, with no opposite party incumbent to defeat. I disagree with many on this board. I think the Democrat group contains an interesting cross-section of decent people who are well-meaning. Some are smart, quite smart, and some are approaching this more as public service than others. I recall the embarrassing Republican presidential primary debates featuring Donald Trump posing as a statesman and the rest of the group lowering themselves to his immature standards during on-stage exchanges that seemed more like drunken squabbles than presidential primary presentations. Pressure and competition can cause decorum and civility to crumble, and I'll be watching closely to see if the Democrat debates descend to such cringe-worthy depths. I doubt it, though.

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by agrarian

The Democrat field is attracting lots of attention because many view President Trump as vulnerable. Just as the Republicans had a massive field in 2016, with no opposite party incumbent to defeat. I disagree with many on this board. I think the Democrat group contains an interesting cross-section of decent people who are well-meaning. Some are smart, quite smart, and some are approaching this more as public service than others. I recall the embarrassing Republican presidential primary debates featuring Donald Trump posing as a statesman and the rest of the group lowering themselves to his immature standards during on-stage exchanges that seemed more like drunken squabbles than presidential primary presentations. Pressure and competition can cause decorum and civility to crumble, and I'll be watching closely to see if the Democrat debates descend to such cringe-worthy depths. I doubt it, though.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by agrarian

The Democrat field is attracting lots of attention because many view President Trump as vulnerable. Just as the Republicans had a massive field in 2016, with no opposite party incumbent to defeat. I disagree with many on this board. I think the Democrat group contains an interesting cross-section of decent people who are well-meaning. Some are smart, quite smart, and some are approaching this more as public service than others. I recall the embarrassing Republican presidential primary debates featuring Donald Trump posing as a statesman and the rest of the group lowering themselves to his immature standards during on-stage exchanges that seemed more like drunken squabbles than presidential primary presentations. Pressure and competition can cause decorum and civility to crumble, and I'll be watching closely to see if the Democrat debates descend to such cringe-worthy depths. I doubt it, though.

You actually imagine that the socialist policies espoused by this gaggle of goofs is by any measure "mature" economic theory?

[bamscram]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

That's true and when I'm out there I'll check it out. I love to gamble in Vegas. I'll let you know how much I won

LOL nobody loses in Vegas., wonder how they stay in business.

[agrarian]

I'm no socialist, but I recognize the value of certain "socialized" aspects of our culture. Also, I don't see worrisome socialist leanings in Harris, Klobuchar, Biden, or Inslee. By the way, I think "gaggle of goofs" is clever, but I wouldn't go so far to say that Senator Warren or many of the others are goofs. You might not agree with Warren's economic philosophy, but she is far from a goof.

[Austin Ellen]

Omg, I busted out laughing again. Thank you Lusty. God bless you!

Originally Posted by lustylad

Are you nuts? Of course middle America, aka "flyover country", aka the "rust belt", includes MI, WI and PA! By anyone's definition.

You sure pick dumb things to argue about.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Are you nuts? Of course middle America, aka "flyover country", aka the "rust belt", includes MI, WI and PA! By anyone's definition.

You sure pick dumb things to argue about.

I really don't care. I googled "middle America" and could find not one definition that listed specific states. However, if you read #1 below it would clearly eliminate the states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania since they are not a "conservative political force".

So if it's a dumb thing to argue about, I assume you won't argue about it.

Mid·dle A·mer·i·ca
/ˈˌmidl əˈmerəkə/
noun
noun: Middle America; singular proper noun: Middle America

1.
the middle class in the US, especially when regarded as a conservative political force.
"they will tell him what Middle America thinks of a President who is prepared to face reality"
the Midwest of the US.

"she is aware of how people in Middle America see her"

2.
the North American region that includes Mexico and Central America, and often the West Indies.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by agrarian

I'm no socialist, but I recognize the value of certain "socialized" aspects of our culture. Also, I don't see worrisome socialist leanings in Harris, Klobuchar, Biden, or Inslee. By the way, I think "gaggle of goofs" is clever, but I wouldn't go so far to say that Senator Warren or many of the others are goofs. You might not agree with Warren's economic philosophy, but she is far from a goof.

Most people who focus on the U.S. becoming more socialistic have little idea of what true socialism is:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Under socialism, the government – rather than individuals or businesses – owns and controls major industries, and the economy is planned centrally. Consequently, the government is the main provider of goods and services for its citizens. Under capitalism, capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses, and the market controls the economy. In most modern countries, however, this system is subject to federal and state legislation and regulations, and so these countries do not practice pure, laissez-faire capitalism. At the other end of the spectrum is communism, a more extreme form of socialism (What is the difference between communism and socialism? explains more). Some countries – Norway and Sweden, for instance – have mixed systems: providers of goods and services enjoy private ownership of resources, while citizens take advantage of social-needs-oriented public services.


With the definition in place, people should take a moment to read the following article titled "Socialism, America’s favorite political term it doesnt understand".

https://medium.com/the-millenial/soc...d-6075b791608b

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bb1961

You continue to list a few states that will determine the 2020 election...then you say it's anyone's guess??
You can't bring yourself to say that the DEMS are doing MANY thing right now that are not going to go over well with the independent votes.
This FISA warrant shit and the possible investigation has the DEMS and their shills...AKA the media going apoplectic over this...Hummmmm I wonder why??
That investigation would sink your party!!
Indictments are coming in the Obummer's white house and their ties to this fiasco.
https://www.redstate.com/slee/2019/0...ort-role-case/

I am trying to be open-minded. A few states will determine the outcome of the 2020 POTUS election, just like they did in 2016. In 2016 most of those states went Trump's way. In 2018 midterms they went the Democratic way, although obviously Trump's name wasn't on any ballot. How these states will go in 2020 is at this point in time pure speculation depending on one's political leanings.

You believe that there are many things going on that will turn out to be detrimental to the Democrats in 2020. What I will say is that in 2020, as in 2016, these distractions will have little affect on people's votes and the major line items such as the economy, immigration, and health care will have the major impact on the election. Unless there is a huge bombshell that comes out, which I doubt will happen.

BTW, my "party" is Independent. I vote based on the person up for election, not by party line. I voted for Greg Abbott for Texas governor and Dan Patrick for Lt. Governor.

[Austin Ellen]

Middle America is a colloquial term for the United States heartland.
Middle America is generally used as both a geographic and cultural label, suggesting a Central United States small town or suburb where most people are middle class, Evangelical
Christian or Mainline Protestant and typical of European descent.

Geographically, Middle America refers to the territory between the East coast and the West coast.

The economy of middle America by agricultural and industrial labor.

I think where you are getting confused is the metropolitan cities tend to be politically and socially progressive. A good example -- Madison, WISCONSIN. But not the rest of the state.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Middle America is a colloquial term for the United States heartland.
Middle America is generally used as both a geographic and cultural label, suggesting a Central United States small town or suburb where most people are middle class, Evangelical
Christian or Mainline Protestant and typical of European descent.

Geographically, Middle America refers to the territory between the East coast and the West coast.

The economy of middle America by agricultural and industrial labor.

I think where you are getting confused is the metropolitan cities tend to be politically and socially progressive. A good example -- Madison, WISCONSIN. But not the rest of the state.

Thank you. I have no problem with your definitions. The point I am making is Mayor Pete, no matter what his political views are, will have no impact in the states that make up most of Middle America -- Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, SD, ND, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Missouri, or Arkansas. These states are SOLID Republican. If you or anyone else wants to consider Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (no way) as Middle American states, fine. I look at them as very different from the other states I mentioned. Much more diverse racially. Much different economically. Wisconsin comes very close to the 11`states I mentioned.

Did you watch the uTube video on Pete Vs. Trump? If so, comments?

[Austin Ellen]

Yes! That was interesting. I agree with him on most states except for - Minnesota, Wisconsin,Michigan and Pa. ( this is between a Mayor Pete and Trump match up)---I think they will go red. Now if he picks a good running mate from one of those 4 states that could change. Mayor Pete is starting to use religion against the Republicans. And that's what I think one of his strong points will be. Also, he articulates well - he doesn't talk down to ordinary Americans i.e. Trumps base are deplorables.
However, there is a big but and that is -- Is America ready for a gay President. My opinion is not at this time. Maybe in the future but not now. But overall I really like Mayor Pete.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I am trying to be open-minded. A few states will determine the outcome of the 2020 POTUS election, just like they did in 2016. In 2016 most of those states went Trump's way. In 2018 midterms they went the Democratic way, although obviously Trump's name wasn't on any ballot. How these states will go in 2020 is at this point in time pure speculation depending on one's political leanings.

You believe that there are many things going on that will turn out to be detrimental to the Democrats in 2020. What I will say is that in 2020, as in 2016, these distractions will have little affect on people's votes and the major line items such as the economy, immigration, and health care will have the major impact on the election. Unless there is a huge bombshell that comes out, which I doubt will happen.

BTW, my "party" is Independent. I vote based on the person up for election, not by party line. I voted for Greg Abbott for Texas governor and Dan Patrick for Lt. Governor.

This FISA warrant investagation has them going nuts...the MSM is carrying the water for the DEMS...you and the left have your heads in the sands if you think this is a big nothing.
The Unwarranted FISA is pure left wing coup of a President...I know you don't consider that a bombshell since you have a STRONG case of TDS...you've said as much.
I'm independent also but there hasn't been a DEM that a would vote for...I vote ideology not the personality...that is the difference between you and I...policies not personalities.
Politics is not a "Miss America" contest.
P.S. Carter was elected in 1976 because of Watergate(Republican scandal)...do a little research...in 1980 he was soundly defeated.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bb1961

This FISA warrant investagation has them going nuts...the MSM is carrying the water for the DEMS...you and the left have your heads in the sands if you think this is a big nothing.
The Unwarranted FISA is pure left wing coup of a President...I know you don't consider that a bombshell since you have a STRONG case of TDS...you've said as much.
I'm independent also but there hasn't been a DEM that a would vote for...I vote ideology not the personality...that is the difference between you and I...policies not personalities.
Politics is not a "Miss America" contest.
P.S. Carter was elected in 1976 because of Watergate(Republican scandal)...do a little research...in 1980 he was soundly defeated.

I doubt that the FISA investigation will have any significant impact on the 2020 election but that is another issue on which we will have to wait on before any determination can be made.

I have told you several times I believe that my dislike of Trump's character has a lot to me not voting for him, but his lack of accomplishments while in office is also a compelling reason. And I've gone into that several times.

Not sure what Carter has to do with the discussion. I voted against him and I certainly agree that his victory was due to Watergate more than anything else.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Yes! That was interesting. I agree with him on most states except for - Minnesota, Wisconsin,Michigan and Pa. ( this is between a Mayor Pete and Trump match up)---I think they will go red. Now if he picks a good running mate from one of those 4 states that could change. Mayor Pete is starting to use religion against the Republicans. And that's what I think one of his strong points will be. Also, he articulates well - he doesn't talk down to ordinary Americans i.e. Trumps base are deplorables.
However, there is a big but and that is -- Is America ready for a gay President. My opinion is not at this time. Maybe in the future but not now. But overall I really like Mayor Pete.

I don't dislike him at all. I would hope that him being gay would not impact people's votes, but we both know it would have some impact. But there is no state that he would win in 2020 that either Biden or Sanders, to name 2 other Democratic options, would not win. And both Biden and Sanders would probably do better in the 4 states you named than Pete. But he is an intriguing option.

When is the last time a city mayor has been nominated for POTUS?

To answer my own question -- DeWitt Clinton in 1812.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/...-house/553628/