Who would be the best candidate for the Dems to put forward for 2020?

3 million ghosts voted for Hillary.. remember?? Tell me more about blind faith

How bout that 110 Billion arms deal with Prince Mad Bat Shyt??? We are crickets on that now.. We had to do that to save America.. Looks like we are not going to thank the supreme being

 

coincidences are a 'blind faithers' freind & chubby...
just so happens that the extra hilly votes match the number of registered cali voters in excess of available voter aged citizens

theres no such thing as coincidences...

 

Denial of reality duly noted!

Explain how your beloved BLOTUS reaches the necessary 270 EC votes now that he has LOST PA, WI and Michigan? You can't!

Furthermore the GOP just lost FL with one million additional voters just added to the rolls.

Your BLOTUS is BELOW 49% which is another strike against him.

There is no longer any "path" to victory which is proven by the fact that you cannot provide one.

 

What imaginary "kavanaugh effect" would that be?

 

Puerile ad hom violation of PF rules duly noted and ignored for derogatory reasons.

 

1. Not my BLOTUS, not even American

2. He could well win those back, flipped them before.

3. Whose to say those FL voters won't vote for Trump?

Frankly as long as extremists like yourself keep shouting at the sky his road to victory is clear.

 

Firing up the GOP base and making those who elected Trump in the first place happy with their decision due to all the Demicrziness.

 

You really need some new drivel to spout.

 

Tulsi Gabbard is the best Candidate.

 

The Reliability of popularity poll when the selection is more than a year away is not much to go on.

 

The Russian meddling hype is a function of after the fact propaganda so disagree on that one.

Agree on the "rejection of Obama" comment. The Dem's had the election handed to them on a silver platter. Hillary's loss is solely on Hillary's head.

1) The anti establishment movement should not be underestimated. It was large on both sides of the fence and likely larger in the middle.

Hillary was a proven Establishment wonk. Trump - while some may have (and should have) suspected Establishment tendencies - we did not know for sure.

2) Hillary was a horrible horrible candidate. She was so arrogant, obnoxious and condescending - akin to nails on a chalkboard - that even many Dem Women did not like her. She presented no plan and nothing to vote for. Her entire platform was "Bad Trump Bad Trump Bad Trump" - repeated ad nauseam like a broken record.

 

Sanders was leading Trump something like 5 points in the polls. Indeed a good chunk of Trump's support came from anti-establishment defections (aka they would have voted Sanders over Trump) after Clinton got the Dem nomination. Sanders would have crushed Trump on both policy and populist appeal. The debates would have been totally 1 sided and the Sander's rallies would have made Trumps look like a sideshow.

 

Thinking it will come down to Biden vs Beto.

 

Kneejerk denialism does not alter factual reality one iota!

All you have is wishful hoping and nothing concrete which is typical of BLOTUS supporters.

 

Your beloved BLOTUS lost 40+ seats in the House which means that there was NO imaginary "kavanaugh effect". All of those extremist rightwing voters were already going to vote in the midterms regardless of what happened in those hearings.

 

Ironic PROJECTION duly noted!

 

• Beto O'Rourke Only popular becuase he didn't lose in a landslide as a Dem in Texas. No chance of winning an election. You can't even count on Trump being a weak opponent as he could end up removed or Primaried. 2024, maybe.
• Sanders Maybe but we all know the Dems will pull the same crap they did last time. After 2020 he'll be too old.
• Booker Done some stuff that's damaged his brand. 2024 maybe but not 2020. He needs damage control.
• Warren Clinton 2.0 would end the same way as Clinton 1.0.
• Biden He lost to Obama. Not shocking now but in 2008 he was some black Hawaiian nobody who wasn't paying attention to politics ever heard about who had only ever served 1 term in the Illinois Senate and 1 year in the US Senate.
  
  The Dems won't win with liberals and they'll need someone young and passionate enough that the Dems won't be able to get away with sidelining.

 

The left hates her because she didn't jump on the Hillary bandwagon. The DNC brushed her off and she threw her support to Bernie.

She's a little radical in terms of economics, but I like how she wants to get us out of all these needless countries.

Something tells me this level headed lady will be hated more and more by the alt left.

 

In which case since there is no "alt left" she obviously has nothing at all to worry about.

 

Wonderful reply. I wonder how the DNC will try and trash her this time around.

 

She's a conservative. If the Repubs hadn't gone fascist, she'd be with them.

She's also in bed with the Russians as much as Trump is.

 

II agree with the above except the alt-Left comment. On this I am not so sure. Depends what the "alt Left" refers to. I 100% agree that the neocon/Establishment Left have sounded the war drums against her.

My hope - recognizing that this may be naive - is that the anti Establishment movement has grown to the point where we may overcome this.

I truly think this woman will have a harder time becoming the nominee than winning the Presidency should she become the nominee.

 

Did this make sense in your head before posting? Just want to check your mental state.

 

Democrats today hate people like Tulsi. Because she's honest and she served her country. That terrifies the elitest wealthy left wingers. They need someone they can control, like Hillary or Biden.

 

Isn't that the truth - or Obama. I was truly disheartened by the degree to which Obama turned his back on his previous beliefs.

As a Harvard constitutional scholar and civil rights activist he has understands the founding principles. 1) essential liberty "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't 2) consent of the Governed 3) restrictions to Gov't power on the basis of these principles.

He would know the meaning of "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" and understands the point of Ben Franklin's "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"

Unlike say "Bush" for example - who made it our "Patriotic Duty" to give up essential liberty over fear of an external threat.

Obama knows the age old trick (as did the founders which is the point of Uncle Ben's comment) of using fear of an external threat to take away liberty.

Obama knows that Stalin used this Trick (trading liberty for security on the basis of fear)_ calling his program "Security for the Motherland"

Obama knows that Hitler did the same "Fatherland Security" as did Bush "Homeland Security"

So Obama changes the name of the "Patriot Act" - act which makes it our "Patriotic duty" to give up essential liberty to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom Act" - The irony was surely not lost on Obama.

He head of the NSA (Clapper) lies to congress (felony 1) about an en mass spying program on US citizens (felony 2). Not only is this goblin not charged or punished - he keeps his Job.

It was Obama's defense of this that made me fall out of my chair - reread Franklin (above) quickly.

Obama's defense was "If we want increased Security - we have to give a little"

Are you friggen kidding me ???

Now perhaps Bush can be forgiven - as he may not have understood these things - but Obama ? Obama knew exactly what he was saying - that it went against everything his life had stood for - YET - he said it anyway.