Predicitons for Democrat candidate in 2020?

(11-11-2018 02:49 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  If it is Rubio then we have lost.

Is there another Hispanic or minority candidate that you could get behind at this time for possible 2024 run on the Republican side?

Quote

Klobuchar or Sherrod Brown, if they run, are my guesses.

Harris' will try to duplicate HRC's strength - she won't win in iowa or NH. California moved their primary up, which is a huge plus for her, but even within California she isn't that well known or popular on her own right (i.e. her popularity over and above just being a dem).

Warren is done after the "dna" stuff.
Booker is reviled by the chapo trap house wing.
It's too crowded for Merkley and coming from the pacnw is hard to build national name recognition.
Gillibrand is a lightweight.
beto will think about it, then decide not to run. he had a nonexistent primary.

Quote

(11-11-2018 03:47 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 02:42 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Im still convinced it is the next election after Trump they will have their best candidate. The better question people should be asking is; Who on the Republican side is going to follow Trump? Are we going to get Cruz or someone else?

Tucker Carlson seems like he is growing a fanbase.

Don't know if the american public will elect a journo though.

Don't underestimate don jr, to be honest. National Review, of all places, on one of their recent podcasts, was extolling the campaign chops of Don Jr and the fact that he doesn't feel he is 'too good' to do the unglamourous part of canvassing/campaigning no matter the venue or state. By doing this in this most recent election he built up a lot of goodwill in state-level machinery.

Quote

(11-11-2018 02:46 PM)Freebird Flying Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 02:42 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Im still convinced it is the next election after Trump they will have their best candidate. The better question people should be asking is; Who on the Republican side is going to follow Trump? Are we going to get Cruz or someone else?

Rubio would seem like he has the best chance to win after Trump based on his moderate appeal and that he can attract more hispanics.

The Republican party is the Trump party now, the conversion will be complete when he wins 2020, in 2024 no cuckservative like Rubio is going to win. The candidate has to be a Trump American to capture Trump's blue collar base.

People are voting Republican because Trump and fighting for America first. If Republicans ever become open borders economic migration and so-called "free-trade" China giveaways again, the votes of walkaways will be severely impacted.

Quote

(11-11-2018 08:33 PM)eljeffster Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 02:46 PM)Freebird Flying Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 02:42 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Im still convinced it is the next election after Trump they will have their best candidate. The better question people should be asking is; Who on the Republican side is going to follow Trump? Are we going to get Cruz or someone else?

Rubio would seem like he has the best chance to win after Trump based on his moderate appeal and that he can attract more hispanics.

The Republican party is the Trump party now, the conversion will be complete when he wins 2020, in 2024 no cuckservative like Rubio is going to win. The candidate has to be a Trump American to capture Trump's blue collar base.

People are voting Republican because Trump and fighting for America first. If Republicans ever become open borders economic migration and so-called "free-trade" China giveaways again, the votes of walkaways will be severely impacted.

That would be great!

Yes that's great point. Donald Trumps endorsement will be very powerful. For some reason I thought a Hispanic guy would have a better chance than a white guy, but I would really like to see the best qualified guy get the job, regardless of skin tone.



Cheers!

Quote

Others including Kona brought her up.

She did an interview with Joe Rogan. Honestly, I thought that this was one of his best ever episodes. I encourage everyone to watch it. Please keep in mind that except for non-interventionism, I do not agree with her on anything.





She is the only Dem who has a chance of beating Trump. She is smart, quick, informed, and a combat vet. While no one can beat Trump in the mud, she strikes me as someone who could effectively block that move and limit Trump's advantages.

Hopefully, she realizes that she would still be a long shot in 2020 and waits until 2024.

Quote

The Dems will nominate someone black. Hillary's big advantage in the primary, other than the obvious rigging, came from winning the minority-heavy Southern states. Here's the map from Democratic Primary of 2016 (Bernie in Green, Crooked in yellow):



Bernie basically won the white states. Crooked took all the black/brown states. I expect this pattern to continue in 2020, with the white candidate losing because the math doesn't work without those population-heavy states.

Whoever the black candidate is (and there will be a lot of fighting between the usual suspects like Harris and Booker, plus some other clowns to see who that is) will sweep the same states that Hillary did and cruise to victory. Whoever gets to is based on winning the media, and that is done by adopting the most radical left-wing platform and screaming 'racism' the loudest.

Bloomberg will run as a third-party based on a "centrist" platform of globalism. His schtick will be that he's the only sane one in the race. He will pick a never Trump Republican as VP to try to steal electoral votes from Trump.

Quote

I don't think dems have time to groom another minority candidate. I have a family member that pointed out Obama's grooming when he was being pushed for Senate in 04. I don't see that with anyone besides Booker trying to groom himself and failing. Beto is the smart pick for the dems. Let's see of they can swallow their pride on it and run a white guy for once.

Quote

I'm wondering if Trump would use the obvious "Beta O'rourke." I know I will if he doesn't fuck off and disappear.

Quote

(11-11-2018 02:08 PM)Hypno Wrote:  Bloomberg is a possibility

Trump has a perfect Twitter killshot and nickname for him should he run...
Nanny Bloomberg

Quote

Whomever the Democrats decide to run, there's no way that person could withstand the awesome power of...

Quote

Rubio is a terrible candidate and broke easy under pressure. So that makes him a perfect candidate for "our guy".

I'm not too clued up on the ground game in Texas but the Dems are gaining there and that has affected Cruz and will continue to do so after Trumps maximum second term. 4 years ago we didnt know what we know now and 2024 is a ways off, but not too far away.

The Republicans have to get at least two names and start pushing them to the front as leaders IMO. Cruz is better than Rubio but which person do you know of who can fire back at the media and win an election by galvanizing the population? Those two certainly wont do it.

Quote

Probably Beto. Cory booker, Kamaka Harris, Kristen Gillenbrand could all run as well. It would be great if Pocahontas won the nomination

Quote

(11-11-2018 11:54 PM)Freebird Flying Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 08:33 PM)eljeffster Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 02:46 PM)Freebird Flying Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 02:42 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Im still convinced it is the next election after Trump they will have their best candidate. The better question people should be asking is; Who on the Republican side is going to follow Trump? Are we going to get Cruz or someone else?

Rubio would seem like he has the best chance to win after Trump based on his moderate appeal and that he can attract more hispanics.

The Republican party is the Trump party now, the conversion will be complete when he wins 2020, in 2024 no cuckservative like Rubio is going to win. The candidate has to be a Trump American to capture Trump's blue collar base.

People are voting Republican because Trump and fighting for America first. If Republicans ever become open borders economic migration and so-called "free-trade" China giveaways again, the votes of walkaways will be severely impacted.

That would be great!

Yes that's great point. Donald Trumps endorsement will be very powerful. For some reason I thought a Hispanic guy would have a better chance than a white guy, but I would really like to see the best qualified guy get the job, regardless of skin tone.



Cheers!

Rubio is not on our side, he is not even conservative. The guy is in favor of not only amnesty but continued immigration and refugee acceptance.

Besides, I thought we learned from trying to play identity politics? Are we really going to run a complete Cuck just so we can steal 3% of the minority votes?

Rubio loses to any average socialist democrat. I probably won't even get off my ass to vote for him and I know most of my old friends who voted for the first time in 2016 would not either.

(11-11-2018 05:21 PM)Freebird Flying Wrote:  

(11-11-2018 02:49 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  If it is Rubio then we have lost.

Is there another Hispanic or minority candidate that you could get behind at this time for possible 2024 run on the Republican side?

There are none on the horizon that could win. I like a few but they don't have what it takes to win. Remember the individual also has to be squeaky clean or know how to squash scandals the way Trump does.

Quote

(11-12-2018 07:50 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Rubio is a terrible candidate and broke easy under pressure. So that makes him a perfect candidate for "our guy".

I'm not too clued up on the ground game in Texas but the Dems are gaining there and that has affected Cruz and will continue to do so after Trumps maximum second term. 4 years ago we didnt know what we know now and 2024 is a ways off, but not too far away.

The Republicans have to get at least two names and start pushing them to the front as leaders IMO. Cruz is better than Rubio but which person do you know of who can fire back at the media and win an election by galvanizing the population? Those two certainly wont do it.

With regards to Texas, remember that Abbott won easily. Texas is still a safe red state.

As a matter of fact, where applicable, the gubernatorial candidates did much better than the senate candidates across the board.

1. Arizona - GOP incumbent governor won by like 10 points. McSally is probably going to lose by 2%.
2. Ohio - GOP gubernatorial candidate won with a comfortable 4 point margin. The senate candidate lost by six. Albeit, that candidate was up against the incumbent Sherrod Brown who is very popular with working white voters.
3. Florida - DeSantis won by a more comfortable margin than Scott, so he'll be safe from fraud. Scott will win but it's going to be ugly because the margin was so narrow.

Etc. Historical trends and messaging problems are probably to blame for this.

As for a rising star to watch, keep a close eye on Dan Crenshaw. He won comfortably in a district that includes parts of blue Houston. He's got the brand as a war hero, he's articulate, knows how to fight back against the left, knows modern media, and is Trumpian in policy.

It's too bad that he's not in the senate to raise his profile further, but that's OK. He's only 34.

2024 should be a bad year for the Republicans though if Trump gets a second term.

Quote

(11-11-2018 04:07 PM)Libertas Wrote:  What were the differences between Bloomberg's spending and Steyer's?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/angelauyeun...52e7393ed1

"Steyer...spent the majority of the money—more than $80 million—on two efforts: Need To Impeach, his online petition and media blitz to oust Trump from office, which later included a Need To Vote initiative; and NextGen Rising, a youth voter mobilization effort."

...whereas Bloomberg...

"A small fraction of Steyer’s funds went directly to candidate races. Through his super PAC NextGen Climate Action, Steyer spent $2.2 million promoting 22 Democrats in House races and $1.7 million on four Democrat Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In contrast, Michael Bloomberg, a deep-pocketed billionaire who committed $110 million this election cycle to help Democrats win, spent $28 million through his super PAC Independence USA, promoting, coincidentally, 22 Democrat candidates running for the House."

Quote

In other words, Steyer is deranged and Bloomberg isn't.

Not too surprising.

Quote

Major Richard Ojeda (ret. US Army) has thrown his hat into the ring.

https://q13fox.com/2018/11/12/military-v...-campaign/

Quote:CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — A retired Army paratrooper and West Virginia lawmaker seeking to restore the Democratic Party’s blue-collar roots chose Veterans Day to formalize his campaign for the presidency in 2020.

State Sen. Richard Ojeda filed his campaign committee paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on Sunday. He planned a speech at noon on Monday.

The military veteran known for his tattoos and populist message lost a congressional race to a Republican this month.

Ojeda is firmly on the Left on economic issues who backed Bernie for the Democratic nomination and when he didn't get it, voted for Trump. He is a WV Democrat who supports the coal industry and is pro gun. This guy if he ran, would attract a lot of the rust belt/working class vote.

The Democratic field will be cluttered this time round. Expect to see Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Michael Bloomberg, Joe Biden, also a decent chance that the Hag will also be in it, Andrew Cuomo, John Hickenlooper with an outside chance of Tulsi Gabard throwing her hat in.

Quote

Martin Armstrong again passing on some info. It's Clinton.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/inter...n-in-2020/

[quote]Yes, the rumors are True. Hillary is indeed planning on running again in 2020. She will throw her Pants-Suit into the ring. I have been hearing that for months now from several sources. It has now even appeared in the Hill publication. Hillary is a diehard ’60s women’s libber and she actually believes it is her divine right to be the first woman president. The Clinton’s were masters at controlling the Democratic Party. Let’s see how she will get them to “plead” with her to run – that is what the rumor is behind the curtain. She will pretend there is nobody else and the Democrats will lay flowers at her feet and beg her to run./quote]

Quote

(11-12-2018 12:05 AM)Bacchus Wrote:  The Dems will nominate someone black. Hillary's big advantage in the primary, other than the obvious rigging, came from winning the minority-heavy Southern states. Here's the map from Democratic Primary of 2016 (Bernie in Green, Crooked in yellow):

Just look at that map on the bottom-right hand side! Vote tallies from all over the world! The Dems aren't even trying to hide the fact that they're letting non-citizens vote!

Comes as no surprise that the entire rest of the world went for Bernie over Crooked, though.

Quote

The world map is for Dems living overseas:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat...mary,_2016

Quote

Quote

I think neither Kamala Harris nor Tulsi Gabbard can win, ever.

Why? Neither of them has borne a child. Most women will refuse to vote for a barren woman as a leader.

Hillary just barely, barely slips over that line, although Chelsea is so ugly, every women looks at her and knows instinctively that she's not a child of love, but a child of woman who hated every moment of being pregnant.

Nancy Pelosi had the highest chance of winning the presidency, because she had 5 kids. Women would vote for her.

If by some strange twist of fate, a barren woman is elected, then one would seriously need to consider leaving the country. Because a barren woman in charge of the nuclear arsenal, backed by all the other crazy single, childless women and lesbians, is a perfect formula for the apocalypse.

Quote

Booker, Biden and Warren will all have major optics problems if they run.

The only guy that has a shot is Bernie, but he might not even live to 2020.

Quote

Brilliant.

Just look at Angela Merkel to see what will happen to a country with a barren woman. Slightly off topic but look at Macron and his bizarre marriage. We can elect people with backwards values but this is contingent on the masses.

I don't think we will see a barren woman for at least another decade. If electing Trump has shown we're not cucked like our European cousins. The plan might be to keep subverting the culture and importing more goat fuckers. Personally speaking fertility treatments are advancing as I do know someone who had a child at late 40s/early 50s.

(12-24-2018 11:36 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  I think neither Kamala Harris nor Tulsi Gabbard can win, ever.

Why? Neither of them has borne a child. Most women will refuse to vote for a barren woman as a leader.

Hillary just barely, barely slips over that line, although Chelsea is so ugly, every women looks at her and knows instinctively that she's not a child of love, but a child of woman who hated every moment of being pregnant.

Nancy Pelosi had the highest chance of winning the presidency, because she had 5 kids. Women would vote for her.

If by some strange twist of fate, a barren woman is elected, then one would seriously need to consider leaving the country. Because a barren woman in charge of the nuclear arsenal, backed by all the other crazy single, childless women and lesbians, is a perfect formula for the apocalypse.

Quote