The Race for the 2020 POTUS elections

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,065
Ratings
12,054
Warren listed herself as American Indian on a registration card for the State Bar of Texas. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b8fba003e81_story.html?utm_term=.ba505687d281

I'm not sure what to think about it. I've read comments that people should let it go and maybe they should. On the other hand, I think there's a difference between saying you have Native American ancestry and claiming somewhere that your race is Native American because a great-great-great someone was Native American. That, I find disrespectful on some level.
There is a difference and it troubles me. Warren basically lied, unless she truly believed she had NA ancestry - which I find hard to swallow.

My respect for her has diminished.:(
 

Daena

Active Member
Messages
132
Ratings
331
When candidates usually announce their running mates?
I mean, some of these people in the list are not very exciting as main candidates but they would be solid VPs (Bennet, for example)
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,278
Ratings
27,734
There is a difference and it troubles me. Warren basically lied, unless she truly believed she had NA ancestry - which I find hard to swallow.

My respect for her has diminished.:(
She truly believed she had Native American ancestry. That is clear from every account of this.

Her character is being attacked by people who don't like her politics and by media trying to create a story that will bring more clicks.

At this point its beyond ridiculous that this is still what people talk about when she comes up. But we all know how this works because we saw it in 2016 and Hillary Clinton.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,278
Ratings
27,734
Also lets be clear about something. The issues about Sen. Warren and her claims to Native American ancestry were fully aired during her first Senate campaign in 2012.

The reason that they are near-constant in the media now is: Donald Trump.

And those who give the attacks credence are allowing Trump's racist dirty work to be effective.

New Mexico Democratic Rep. Deb Haaland, one of the first Native American women in Congress, said on CNN's "At This Hour" with Kate Bolduan that she took Trump's remark to be about the Trail of Tears.

"He is just completely ignorant when it comes to Native Americans, Native American history," Haaland said. "It's exhausting, right? It's completely exhausting to try to keep up with so much of his ignorance and racism for native people."
Haaland also has also expressed a positive view of Warren's dealing with the issue.

Trump Jr. makes light of Native American genocide while rooting for father's attack on Warren (CNN)
 
Messages
8,904
Ratings
22,509
I have to say that I have secondhand but reliable confirmation on this. It’s a shame because she’s a good candidate on paper and very smart. Staff abuse, however, indicates a huge character flaw.
I was quite disappointed to read about this, because I was liking Klobuchar as a candidate.

However, I agree that staff abuse is a very big character flaw. I’ve worked for an abusive boss in the past, so I have strong feelings about this. How a boss treats the people “underneath” them is very revealing of their true character, IMO.
 

PRlady

Gutting it out
Messages
31,313
Ratings
34,945
At the moment, my dream ticket is Warren and either Brown or O’Rourke. Warren is the one candidate who really gets that the system is broken and needs sweeping change. The fact that Trump goes after her and the worst they can find is the old Indian thing tells you who he’s scared of as a candidate.
 

Daena

Active Member
Messages
132
Ratings
331
Senate 2020 race, off-topic here but I think it will be ok: Mark Kelly will run for McCain's seat in Arizona. Astronaut, navy pilot, combat veteran, son of two police officers, man of science, Gabby Gifford's husband, Scott Kelly's (year long mission in space, they were members of study on effects of prolonged spaceflights on human body on identical twins) brother.
It's like he covers all bases, wow.
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C
Messages
45,733
Ratings
31,656
I thought Klobuchar looked strong and very presidential. I think that image (including the optics) is etched in my mind and that of others. I still want to see how everything develops, but that snow flurry helped her cause. She had ordered 5000 hand warmers for the people there.

She was interviewed on Rachel Maddow last night. Rachel asked her some tough questions, particularly about the high turnover in her staff. Amy's response was that she has high expectations and she wants to get things done. It is a satisfactory answer to me for now. We will see if more information comes forward. I would not dismiss a candidate on high turnover alone, just because it coincides with the Trump WH.
 
Last edited:

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,278
Ratings
27,734
At the moment, my dream ticket is Warren and either Brown or O’Rourke. Warren is the one candidate who really gets that the system is broken and needs sweeping change. The fact that Trump goes after her and the worst they can find is the old Indian thing tells you who he’s scared of as a candidate.
Warren/Castro.

I agree that Warren's agenda is absolutely necessary. Until we address the structural power imbalances in society we won't be able to address climate change adequately, among other things.

But I don't know whether Warren can implement her agenda by winning the presidency. She could just end up very embattled. It really depends on whether she could sweep in many allies in Congress and elsewhere.

I'll wait and see how things transpire, but I'm skeptical. So for the moment I'm more inclined to see Kamala Harris as the strongest candidate and strongest potential president. She is the one candidate who has delivered a message that to me is inclusive and comprehensive in a way that reflects the whole country.
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Medvedeva, T&M, Shibs, P&C
Messages
45,733
Ratings
31,656
My top choices right now (not in order):

Harris
Klobuchar
Castro

As more candidates announce I could expand the list (I am waiting for you, Beto, Sherrad, Joe).

The good news is - there are so many good democratic candidates to choose from (unlike the 16 republicans in 2015/2016, and they picked THE Worst!)
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,278
Ratings
27,734
I thought Klobuchar looked strong and very presidential. I think that image (including optics) is etched in my mind and that of others. I still want to see how every thing develops, but that snow flurry helped her cause. She had ordered 5000 hand warmers for the people there.

She was interviewed on Rachel Maddow last night. Rachel asked her some tough questions, particularly about the high turnover in her staff. Amy's response was that she has high expectations and she wants to get things done. It is a satisfactory answer to me for now. We will see if more information comes forward. I would not dismiss a candidate on high turnover alone, just because it coincides with the Trump WH.
I agree with you about waiting and seeing on Klobuchar. She's getting dumped on right now because that's how the media does these things. There's something to the stories, but is it disqualifying? The thing is time will tell. If she runs a skillful campaign and doesn't have a lot of staff turnover, she'll prove she is not all the stories are making out.

My top candidates for now are
Harris
Booker
Castro
Gillibrand

Haven't been too inclined to O'Rourke but am impressed with his El Paso rally last night.
 

PRlady

Gutting it out
Messages
31,313
Ratings
34,945

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,362
Ratings
14,091
I don't know if non-subscribers can access this but the NY Times has a gorgeous picture of four of our women candidates at the top of today's print front page (illustrating a story on sexism on the campaign trail.)

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/02/12/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf

Uh, NYT, I thought sexism was just an excuse Hillary came up with because she ran a bad campaign. Guess not? :shuffle:

In all seriousness though, it's good to see an article like that. The question is, will journalists actually remember that in the upcoming months?

It'll be interesting to see how Trump deals with all of the women further down the road. He's already struggling with Pelosi, now he's got a bunch of strong women being serious contenders for the nomination.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,278
Ratings
27,734
She was the victim of a lot of bad stuff. If you can tease it all apart to decide whether the quality of her campaign was really bad, you are more clever than I am.

Meanwhile, this reminded me I wanted to rant:

Albia, Iowa, a town of less than 4,000, will host a spaghetti dinner with three different presidential candidates on Sunday night.
The fact that we have this months long campaign season in which candidates concentrate heavily on two states that are not representative of the country in any notable way is one of those things that is absolutely insane even though everyone just goes along with it.

Hey maybe I want to have dinner with some of the candidates (or maybe just Kirsten Gillibrand :shuffle: ). One person one vote, my votes counts just as much as an Iowan. Not.

At least occasionally they also go to South Carolina...
 

WildRose

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,672
Ratings
3,954
The priority in the next election has to be to beat Trump. Democrats need to nominate someone who is electable not just by Democrats, but also undecideds and Republicans looking for an alternative. That means not controversial, and not too far left, (although they will get labelled “socialist” regardless). American voters get hung up on race issues and have trouble with strong women. A white, moderate male is probably the safest bet. One who can deliver a big Republican State would be even better. With all due respect to Warren, Klobuchar and Harris, all of whom would make great leaders, now is not the time to take chances. I’m thinking that if Democrats want to beat Trump, they go with Beto O’Rourke. He can draw big crowds, he can raise big money, he’s a great speaker, he has a positive message of hope to contrast with Trump’s fear mongering, he’s young and photogenic, and if he’s nominated he brings Texas with him.
 

VIETgrlTerifa

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,338
Ratings
48,260
You have to motivate voters to come out.

If Dems pick a white male moderate who doesn't offend anyone, there's a good chance the lack of enthusiasm will cost them a lot of votes.
I think 2016 is so hard to analyze because Trump was not the usual candidate and really appealed to anti-establishment people in general (people who hate institutions and think they'll all evil) AND the far-right discovered he'll do whatever they want if they played nice with him, and Hillary with her baggage (not all of it her fault but you know how it goes) was vilified by those would-be moderates because she was a woman and the whole Dem party was painted by them as appeasing the far left and the far left who felt she was a Republican-lite war hawk.
 

PRlady

Gutting it out
Messages
31,313
Ratings
34,945
You’re all right. The Republicans’ only chance, given that Trump has never come near a 50 % approval rating, is to be able to pigeonhole the Dem into a too-radical corner. More death committees and other lies.

But ANY Dem nominated is going to be attacked that way (AOC is going to tax you at 70%!)

So I’m just as happy to nominate someone who will make a clear case for a progressive agenda with a lot of focus on the economy, jobs and the affordability of healthcare and education. And that someone should excite the base and look reasonable to an independent who is embarrassed by Trump’s antics, ie most of them.

A professorial looking lady with more history and knowledge than anyone on inequality and the shenanigans of the one percent fits the bill. :)
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,278
Ratings
27,734
You’re all right. The Republicans’ only chance, given that Trump has never come near a 50 % approval rating, is to be able to pigeonhole the Dem into a too-radical corner. More death committees and other lies.
Disagree. John McCain ran this campaign against Barack Obama. Trump didn't run it against Clinton. He ran on hate, to put it simply. And he'll do that again. He'll rile people up and divide them and scare them. Sure he'll target the Dem as radical even if its Bloomberg, but that's only part of what he'll do.

And the rest of what he does may, after four years, seriously backfire. A lot of people don't want hate and divisiveness, taunting and mocking, encouraging incivility and the rest. So there likely will be a lot more people who aren't as concerned about a Democrat being too radical as they might be against a more reasonable Republican.

So I don't think the Dems need to cower in fear that they are nominating someone who is too liberal (whoever it is will look staid compared to AOC and she's not all that out there really) or not white and male enough.
 

PRlady

Gutting it out
Messages
31,313
Ratings
34,945
I don’t want the Dems cowering in fear period. And I’m an old Third Way middle of-the-roader. But we have gained nothing by being centrist as the center moves further right, and time and demographics are on our side.
 

MacMadame

Cat Lady-in-Training
Messages
28,054
Ratings
20,839
She truly believed she had Native American ancestry. That is clear from every account of this.
BECAUSE SHE HAS IT. She has a DNA test to prove it.

I really don't get this "she lied" narrative at all. She never claimed to be eligible to belong to a tribe. She claimed to have Native American ancestry. Which she does.

I happen to believe Hillary was the victim of sexism AND she ran a bad campaign. They're not mutually exclusive.
Clinton is not the best campaigner. I was holding my breath for the entire time. She would have been a great a President though.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,107
Ratings
8,870
I am not supporting Kamala Harris. Several issues with her past policies/rhetoric in California.
I won't support/vote for Corey Booker either. He's a corporatist and too many ties with lobbyists/money.

So far the 2020 democratic candidates appear to be centrists and neoliberals. I don't think these candidates are going to inspire the demographics needed to come out and vote. I just don't see a centrist or neoliberals conquering the oligarchy and fascism power in the country right now.

Will their be a Democratic nominee that will attempt to placate the progressive voters?
 
Last edited:

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,107
Ratings
8,870
....was vilified by those would-be moderates because she was a woman and the whole Dem party was painted by them as appeasing the far left and the far left who felt she was a Republican-lite war hawk.
Which was and is baffling to me. The far left has not and does not set the policies for the democratic party(nationally). I have personally witness more progressive and left leaning candidates defunded or not funded at all, discouraged and outright sabotaged by state democratic party leaders.

Folks like Claire Mccaskill & Steny Hoyer's policies have been the ones to dominate the last 20 years of democratic party. Not Barbara Lee, Mark Pocan, Jeff Merkley(senate) and others.

@5:00min. AOC's explanation is EXACTLY what I am looking for.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 6, Guests: 4)

Top