Who will be the Democrats' presidential candidate against Trump?

Asian Americans for Joe Biden 2020

We're thrilled to launch Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) for Biden — and we’re so proud to have @MichelleWKwan on #TeamJoe!
@JoeBiden celebrates the diversity of America. As president, he'll unite our nation. If you're with us, join now: https://t.co/tolxjwAOTu pic.twitter.com/rZOa4yLA9c

— Team Joe (Text JOE to 30330) (@TeamJoe) October 26, 2019

guess you've got no choice but to vote for Biden now eh

Hapless_Hans wrote:guess you've got no choice but to vote for Biden now eh

Amazes me how some people never learn from their mistakes.  

Biden is a shittier version of Hillary, Trump will toy with him in the debates, just imagine him mocking Biden while he's stuttering.

Pedram wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:guess you've got no choice but to vote for Biden now eh

Amazes me how some people never learn from their mistakes.  

Biden is a shittier version of Hillary, Trump will toy with him in the debates, just imagine him mocking Biden while he's stuttering.

His VP candidate might win the election if he gets the nomination considering he's gonna get murdered on the debate stage.

If he's nominated he's going to be worst debater there's ever been nominated.

When is the Iowa caucus? Things should be getting real soon, shouldn't they?

Hapless_Hans wrote:When is the Iowa caucus? Things should be getting real soon, shouldn't they?

February 3rd

Hapless_Hans wrote:guess you've got no choice but to vote for Biden now eh

If Warren goes out? Certainly.

Pedram wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:guess you've got no choice but to vote for Biden now eh

Amazes me how some people never learn from their mistakes.  

Biden is a shittier version of Hillary, Trump will toy with him in the debates, just imagine him mocking Biden while he's stuttering.

No swing voter is going to be swayed by a few choice words a month or so before the election.

"OH MAN, THIS OLD GUY STUTTERED...GUESS I HAVE TO VOTE FOR THE SEXIST BIGOT"

This is what I was referring to in an earlier post when I mentioned that corporations are not people, yet are able to influence our elections like people due to a Supreme Court ruling:

"The court’s naive view of our electoral process set the stage for 10 years of billions of dollars corrupting our politics and dictating national policy," @usatodayopinion contributor Tiffany Muller says of the Citizens United decision.https://t.co/Eahu7OvNax

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) January 20, 2020

This has been perhaps the most devastating piece of judicial malfeasance in the last 100 years. It's the reason we have a Trump presidency to begin with and why he might even get a 2nd term.

Bloomberg seems right up your alley McLewis

McLewis wrote:

What a lazy talking point.

It's an open secret that every member of the US Senate is at least a millionaire. Literally every major politician from both parties is. You want to see politicians who are closer to the middle-class, look at the members of the House. AOC documented the entire process after winning her election and taking her seat in the House and how adjusting from going from a bartender's salary to a Congresswoman's is an enormous shift in prosperity. You pointing out the Sanders and Warren are millionaires is not news nor is it newsworthy.

That would be an apt example if AOC or some commoner were, in fact, running for president, but as it stands, we have a septuagenarian who's spent half his life in the upper echelons of government and a woman who's fabricated almost her entire existence to gain an easy path to success telling us they're sick of the privileged running the show. Oh and AOC is nothing new, there are hundreds of cases of people who started off from nowhere and climbed the prestigious political ladder to enter the cut throat realm of politics.

McLewis wrote:If we're going to tackle income inequality, we'll need help from the very people who have the ability to influence that system. Sanders and Warren are part of that group.

Wernie have a combined 52 years worth of working within the government in some capacity, yet they decide NOW is the time to do something about the income inequality? Now is the time to strike that dastardly inequality that's been rampant within the social and economic fabric of America for......four years?    

McLewis wrote:I don't see Trump, McConnell, Pence and other super well-off GOP politicians trying to make things better for the middle-class and pave a path to the same prosperity they enjoy

Pave a path? Is the path to prosperity somehow blocked? Is there a large Meghan McCain sized boulder in the way between success and the average Joe? Again, it's amazing how the yellow brick road to the American dream suddenly got sealed off now. By the way, is Biden proclaiming he'll get rid of jobs that involve the processing of fossil fuels a pathway to prosperity?

McLewis wrote:I tire of bringing up those stupid tax cuts, but again they did not help the middle-class. That was never going to happen when companies shuffled that money to their shareholders (who are NOT middle class) instead.

That's funny, because every American i've talked to thus far has told me they've seen more money in their overall pay since the tax cuts. And given that I don't know Donatella Versace or Jeff Bezos personally to comment, i'd say they're pretty middle and working class

McLewis wrote:So why are you not focusing on the GOP politicians as well along with Sanders and Warren? It couldn't possible be that you're too partisan and prone to parroting right-wing talking points to admit that this problem affects both ends of the ideological spectrum, could it?

Or maybe it's because Ted Cruz doesn't make $1.2 million selling a book, or use his ties to the native American community to further his own career to the point he's running for the presidency and then, without a hint of irony, turn around and say "the problem is, we have too many well connected, wealthy and prosperous people in government and that needs to stop"

Forgive the haphazard structure, you have no idea how difficult that was to do on a phone

New Biden Ad has me in tears. pic.twitter.com/3fZtA3RQK3

— Bernie Sanders is an Old Bigot (@KHiveQueenB) January 20, 2020

Thats our president @cbarca @mclewis

@Lex - Firstly, kudos for typing out this reply on a phone. I've done it before and it sucks.

On topic -

That would be an apt example if AOC or some commoner were, in fact, running for president, but as it stands, we have a septuagenarian who's spent half his life in the upper echelons of government and a woman who's fabricated almost her entire existence to gain an easy path to success telling us they're sick of the privileged running the show. Oh and AOC is nothing new, there are hundreds of cases of people who started off from nowhere and climbed the prestigious political ladder to enter the cut throat realm of politics.

You're 100% right. There are plenty of examples of politicians who started from nothing and ended up with everything.

However, what makes AOC and those of her generation different is that they came up through grassroots organizing and did not take dark money from corporate or uber wealthy donors. Can we honestly say that about the GOP members of her political class? Not really.

Wernie have a combined 52 years worth of working within the government in some capacity, yet they decide NOW is the time to do something about the income inequality? Now is the time to strike that dastardly inequality that's been rampant within the social and economic fabric of America for......four years?

I mean why not now? Why is now the wrong time? There's an Obama-sized vacuum on the Democrat side and we have a GOP President who is clearly corrupt and in serious danger of being a one termer. For Bernie and Warren, I don't think there is a better time to advance their agendas than now, regardless of what you or I think of them. There is never a wrong time to fight income inequality.

Pave a path? Is the path to prosperity somehow blocked? Is there a large Meghan McCain sized boulder in the way between success and the average Joe? Again, it's amazing how the yellow brick road to the American dream suddenly got sealed off now. By the way, is Biden proclaiming he'll get rid of jobs that involve the processing of fossil fuels a pathway to prosperity?

Yes the path to prosperity for everyday Americans is blocked. What are the 3 major blockers? Bankruptcy-inducing medical costs, rippling student debt and a housing bubble that is simply out of reach. Our parents didn't have to deal with any of this. They put themselves through college with jobs that wouldn't even put us through a semester of college today. When they got hurt, their medical bills were easier to pay off given their insurance premiums were significantly lower. And by the time they were our age, they already had bought a nice house in the burbs on a salary most people can't even afford a decent apartment on right now. Conservatives love to counter these points with cries of personal responsibility and yes, that's a factor here, yet it ignores systemic factors (rising college tuition, rising medical insurance premiums, rising mortgage loans in housing markets all combined with stagnant, lower wages) that exist effectively as blockers to prosperity. Chalking it all up to "personal responsibility" is not only lazy, it's intellectually dishonest.

That's funny, because every American i've talked to thus far has told me they've seen more money in their overall pay since the tax cuts. And given that I don't know Donatella Versace or Jeff Bezos personally to comment, i'd say they're pretty middle and working class

That's anecdotal so not very useful to this conversation given that I could just easily find people who have not benefited at all from the tax cuts. In fact, I personally know of people who's taxes actually increased as a result of these cuts. See where this is going? Anecdotes don't work in debates.

Or maybe it's because Ted Cruz doesn't make $1.2 million selling a book, or use his ties to the native American community to further his own career to the point he's running for the presidency and then, without a hint of irony, turn around and say "the problem is, we have too many well connected, wealthy and prosperous people in government and that needs to stop"

Ted Cruz isn't the best rebuttal example to use when we're talking about personal enrichment. He received $1.2 million in campaign donations from the Oil and Gas industry during his 2016 run. Give me the candidates who makes the same amount from writing a book every day of the week. As for her Native American ancestry, yes she has has stumbled largely with that. And yet, I'd prefer that all day over a President who has had to settle lawsuits brought against him for defrauding people through a for-profit university as well as paying off pornstars for sexual encounters......with campaign money. Warren's problems are the definition of small potatoes in comparison.

Young Kaz wrote:Bloomberg seems right up your alley McLewis

He's such a weird candidate given how he entered the race, but policy wise he isn't the worst. My one hang up about him? He's a billionaire and I don't want another member of the 1% as President. Like all other candidates though, if he somehow wins the nomination, I'll vote for him without hesitation. Definitely not my candidate as of right now though, no matter how good his ads are.

Young Kaz wrote:

New Biden Ad has me in tears. pic.twitter.com/3fZtA3RQK3

— Bernie Sanders is an Old Bigot (@KHiveQueenB) January 20, 2020

Thats our president @cbarca @mclewis

I think that ad perfectly encapsulates just why he's got the black vote so tightly locked up and why there's not a single candidate that can wrestle it away from him. It hit a lot of great notes. A very good ad. Too bad he's a such a political dinosaur.

McLewis wrote:

Young Kaz wrote:Bloomberg seems right up your alley McLewis

He's such a weird candidate given how he entered the race, but policy wise he isn't the worst. My one hang up about him? He's a billionaire and I don't want another member of the 1% as President. Like all other candidates though, if he somehow wins the nomination, I'll vote for him without hesitation. Definitely not my candidate as of right now though, no matter how good his ads are.

Young Kaz wrote:

New Biden Ad has me in tears. pic.twitter.com/3fZtA3RQK3

— Bernie Sanders is an Old Bigot (@KHiveQueenB) January 20, 2020

Thats our president @cbarca @mclewis

I think that ad perfectly encapsulates just why he's got the black vote so tightly locked up and why there's not a single candidate that can wrestle it away from him. It hit a lot of great notes. A very good ad. Too bad he's a such a political dinosaur.

I didnt mean to post that Star vs the forces video. Guess my lines got crossed lol.

Bloomberg is self made and is using his own money. I think that should hold some weight. He isnt just another wealthy guy who got everything handed to him a la trump.

That biden ad is amazing. He quotes james Cleveland. I'd be shocked if any other democrat candidate even knew who that was. Man knows the culture. The culture of those of us who were marginalized and on the outskirts of this society.

I remember my Japanese grandma blasting James Cleveland on our old record player on friday,saturday,sunday nights. It was good christian music that got them through hard times.

Comparing Biden to Hillary is so bad.

One is a man, to start lol. Makes him a completely different candidate. Not to mention the entire legacy of the Obama's around him.

At the end of the day, like McLewis said, he dominates the black vote. I'd put money on him being the nominee. He's not my favorite but there are worse options.

I don't think Hillary lost because she was a woman. Plenty of Americans have absolutely no problem putting their confidence in someone from the opposite sex. I think she lost because she was simply quite unlikable. Plus, I'm pretty sure those who had voted for Sanders (or at least a big chunk of them) felt he was robbed by the DNC and, as a result, they didn't want to give her their support.

Hillary attacking Bernie right before the primaries, best endorsement he could get lol.

“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It's all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”

Why this hag thinks she's relevant in 2020? she fucking lost to a game show host, that should disqualify her from ever appearing on any media again.

Pedram wrote:Hillary attacking Bernie right before the primaries, best endorsement he could get lol.

“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It's all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”

Why this hag thinks she's relevant in 2020? she fucking lost to a game show host, that should disqualify her from ever appearing on any media again.

There’s also this from today.

https://twitter.com/newsweek/status/1219662797941944322?s=21

I love a good “how could we have known” defense.

Should be “how could we have been so blind”.

I knew he was trouble a decade ago all the way in Denmark.

I mean Hillary's not wrong in that Sanders is known for being tough to work with on Capitol Hill. It's part of his image.

That said, her timing on this was terrible so close to the Iowa caucus.

The Demon of Carthage wrote:I don't think Hillary lost because she was a woman. Plenty of Americans have absolutely no problem putting their confidence in someone from the opposite sex. I think she lost because she was simply quite unlikable. Plus, I'm pretty sure those who had voted for Sanders (or at least a big chunk of them) felt he was robbed by the DNC and, as a result, they didn't want to give her their support.

Hillary absolutely lost because she's a woman.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think she ran a great campaing or was that great a candidate, but a man with her name recognition, resumee, record and political stance would have won against TRump no problem at all.

She lost because for a woman, being unlikeable is a no go with voters.
As a man, you can be unlikeable if certain voters think you're competent, they will still vote for you.
As a woman, you can be perceived as competent as can be (and Hillary sure was competent), if you're perceived as unlikeable, as Hillary was constantly declared, you won't be elected by those same voters.

That's a fact, a sexist sociological fact at present.

Saying Hilary lost because she is a women is so out of touch, honestly it is infuriating to see mild minded people on this forum making that claim..

She was terrible candidate and had a poor campighn. I see no merit arguing that she should have won despite that.

She is no different from Trump from my perspective, as corrupt as him. Her whole whole life she has been surrounded by the same people as Trump, went to the same parties. She is awful candidate and person, I would never vote for her. Stop making excuses for that psychopath.

Blue wrote:Saying Hilary lost because she is a women is so out of touch, honestly it is infuriating to see mild minded people on this forum making that claim..

She was terrible candidate and had a poor campighn. I see no merit arguing that she should have won despite that.

She is no different from Trump from my perspective, as corrupt as him. Her whole whole life she has been surrounded by the same people as Trump, went to the same parties. She is awful candidate and person, I would never vote for her. Stop making excuses for that psychopath.

Honestly think you're missing my point.

My point is not to validate Clinton as a politician, she's not a politician I like in the least, I would have not voted for her were I American because of her positions and her record.
I also think the party made the huge mistake (from their point of view) of treating her nomination like a coronation, else the Bernie phenomenon wouldn't even have occurred like that btw

My point is that a politician of Clinton's name recognition, belt way establishment credentials, star power, financial support, corporate support, experience, and record would have easily won the presidential election against the candidate Trump, were this politician a man.
So yes, she lost because she's a woman.
Trump won as result of a massive backlash of racism against Obama, and sexism, within areas and voters that hold the electoral college in a stranglehold.

And that's also why, NO, Clinton is not the same as Trump. Not at all.
I strongly oppose her and what she stands for, but she IS a woman, she has a life record of fighting for progressive causes until she sold her political soul to be the nice first lady of Arkansas to her terrible husband and onwards from thereon.

Trump is just a sociopathic piece of shit that has never done anything of worth for anyone else but himself.

Absolutely we should be able to differentiate between all these things, without validating the politician Hillary Clinton

Why on earth are non Americans so interested in this? I mean I would understand if you're Iranian, or a gun nut... It's interesting as mass shootings in the US nowadays.