2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I'm sorry guys but if Donald Trump could win, Kanye West definitely could, and definitely will.

What about Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson?

How about you throw in Peter Griffin, Homer Simpson and Stan from American Dad just to crown the fucking pile of manure that are celebrities running for the position of President?

[Bahktar]

How about you throw in Peter Griffin, Homer Simpson and Stan from American Dad just to crown the fucking pile of manure that are celebrities running for the position of President?

Have you heard of a thing called sarcasm, or a joke? I wasn't being serious about Dwayne Johnson, it was a joke suggestion. Of course, if he gained political experience and got elected to office, and if I supported his policies, then I would consider it.

Personally, I'm rooting for O' Rourke, however, he hasn't announced his candidacy yet. I'm not a one-hundred percent sure either, but I've got my eye on him and I like what I've seen so far.

[Salandriagado]

I think there are better candidates than Gabbard which is obvious considering my statements the past 2 pages, but I would really want to see in what way Tulsi Gabbard is supposedly anti-semitic. Please provide some sort of factual evidence, rather than, "I'm a Jew, so I know it."
Is it be cause of Syria?

It could be because she's more critical of Israel than some others , but criticising Israel's separation policies doesn't, IMO, equate to outright antisemitism.

I remind you that you're posting on a forum that has condemned people for antisemetism for making the statement "states don't have rights, people have rights" and not excluding Israel from the "states don't have rights" bit.

[The Archregimancy]

Leaving aside the disagreements - and the slightly heated thread rhetoric - over her actual politics, I don't for a second think that Tulsi Gabbard has the slightest chance of being elected president in 2020.

I just don't think the United States is going to elect a 39-year-old* half-Polynesian vegetarian Hindu woman from American Samoa who represents Hawaii in Congress as its president.

Is that fair? Almost certainly not. Is it realistic? Likely yes.

Even leaving aside all of the other factors, she'd be the youngest person elected to the presidency by a good four years (beating Kennedy; Theodore Roosevelt was a year younger than Kennedy on assuming office, but wasn't elected). She'd also only the be the second person to be elected to to the presidency straight from the House; Garfield was the other, and even he was a senator-elect at the time. Surely she has an eye on either 2024 or the vice-presidency rather than seriously thinking she's going to win the Democratic nomination for 2020.


*Age at the 2020 election, if I'm calculating correctly.

[Bahktar]

If Tulsi Gabbard was nominated by the Democratic Party as their presidential nominee for 2020, at that point I'd wager she does have a good chance of being elected, if national trends continue as they have or get worse, with Trump's approval rating being under 45% for most of the time.

However, the problem is her getting the nomination, which I believe is nearly impossible. I'd say if she was nominated, she'd have a good chance, but she doesn't really have a good chance at being President, because said nomination is in the way.

[Major-Tom]

Also, Castro has announced he will be running. I don't see him exactly inspiring that many voters, though I'm sure he can wrangle together a sizable amount of fundraising.

Presumably he's trying to get out in front of a potential O'Rourke candidacy. I doubt it'll be much help for him one way or the other.

He'll fizzle sometime around the Iowa Caucus, provided he doesn't drop out before then. I know donors will go for him initially, given his role in the Obama administration, as well as his close ties to the DNC, etc etc, but what he lacks is name recognition and Beto levels of charisma.

[Major-Tom]

Leaving aside the disagreements - and the slightly heated thread rhetoric - over her actual politics, I don't for a second think that Tulsi Gabbard has the slightest chance of being elected president in 2020.

I just don't think the United States is going to elect a 39-year-old* half-Polynesian vegetarian Hindu woman from American Samoa who represents Hawaii in Congress as its president.

Is that fair? Almost certainly not. Is it realistic? Likely yes.

Even leaving aside all of the other factors, she'd be the youngest person elected to the presidency by a good four years (beating Kennedy; Theodore Roosevelt was a year younger than Kennedy on assuming office, but wasn't elected). She'd also only the be the second person to be elected to to the presidency straight from the House; Garfield was the other, and even he was a senator-elect at the time. Surely she has an eye on either 2024 or the vice-presidency rather than seriously thinking she's going to win the Democratic nomination for 2020.


*Age at the 2020 election, if I'm calculating correctly.

I could see her potentially appealing to a niche group of voters and making it to New Hampshire, before running out of funds and essentially being forced to dropout. Middle America, Establishment Dems & Suburban Dems wouldn't go for her, for better or worse.

[The Archregimancy]

Leaving aside the disagreements - and the slightly heated thread rhetoric - over her actual politics, I don't for a second think that Tulsi Gabbard has the slightest chance of being elected president in 2020.

I just don't think the United States is going to elect a 39-year-old* half-Polynesian vegetarian Hindu woman from American Samoa who represents Hawaii in Congress as its president.

Is that fair? Almost certainly not. Is it realistic? Likely yes.

Even leaving aside all of the other factors, she'd be the youngest person elected to the presidency by a good four years (beating Kennedy; Theodore Roosevelt was a year younger than Kennedy on assuming office, but wasn't elected). She'd also only the be the second person to be elected to to the presidency straight from the House; Garfield was the other, and even he was a senator-elect at the time. Surely she has an eye on either 2024 or the vice-presidency rather than seriously thinking she's going to win the Democratic nomination for 2020.


*Age at the 2020 election, if I'm calculating correctly.

I could see her potentially appealing to a niche group of voters and making it to New Hampshire, before running out of funds and essentially being forced to dropout. Middle America, Establishment Dems & Suburban Dems wouldn't go for her, for better or worse.

As I said, she's surely positioning herself for the vice-presidency, and/or a more serious tilt at the presidency in 2024 or 2028 (when she'd still only be in her 40s).

What a shame that by then the combination of the Kingdom of Hawai'i overturning its illegal annexation by the United States, and [Western] Samoa's surprise 2025 invasion of American Samoa will have made her ineligible for the office.

[Major-Tom]

You could say the same about probably half of the prominent Democrats per your first point tbh.

Secondly, Modi is pretty shitty, dunno about dangerous.

Third, yeah, the Assad thing bugs me. As I said, I probably wouldn't vote for her. My point is really that I hate seeing people who I know to be pretty level-headed and reasonable (IE yourself) stooping to Tea Party levels of scare tactics (the nazi thing, full on bigot thing, dangerous for America etc).

It tends to irk me when people can't just focus on the issues they have with a person, and stick to that basis, instead of getting up in arms about it.

Well, in all honesty, I do see her as the closest thing we have to a Nazi in federal office.
And opportunism, granted, I'll give you that to an extent, but I feel like she's flip-flopped too hard and I'm skeptical that she actually believes her more liberal views. In India there's a bitter debate if Modi is dangerous, or possibly a dictator. I'm admittedly mixed but left it in there as a possibility for fairness reasons and caution.

And, while I do agree foreign policy disagreements should be encouraged, I still think the Assad thing fully disqualifies her for the Democrats. I just think she's not caring about human rights, and so I cannot help but see her as dangerous to our ideals.

And I cannot support a flip-flopper who supports a brutal genocidal dictator and has many views that are more republican, to an extent that some of the far-right like her.

I don't mind that they like her, but it's why they do that I have an issue with her, as well as the many other things. If some of the worst of the far-right like you, and many racists, for reasons that are similar to yours, I believe you should reconsider your beliefs and see if you truly are a Democrat. DINO's don't exist mostly, but I do see politicians who are dangerous to the party, mostly when it comes to human rights.


The Anti-Semitism and Assad things are to me a dealbreaker and to me disqualifies her from being a Democrat, not due to ideological differences, but due to concern about discrimination, prejudice, support or neglect of pursuing those who persecute those groups, and lack of human rights concerns.

EXACTLY what I've been saying! I'm Jewish, so hell will freeze over before I'm caught dead voting for an antisemite, or a bigot in general. If I have to, I'll write in Hillary.

I'm also part-jewish. Tulsi Gabbard is very worrying.

Listen, this Gabbard argument that has flooded this particular topic has become redundant, the epitome of a dead horse getting it's shit kicked in. That said - my objection was really with the adjectives you had chosen to use. I myself really don't think I can convince you that some of your grievances are perhaps overstated and heavy-handed, and I generally enjoy your posts, so Imma just leave this one be.

[Varaskia]

Not very familiar with Gabbard, but I get the impression she's probably a little bit too dovish for the right of the Democratic party to be their first choice, and too suspect in terms of her views on Islam and her friendship with Narendra Modi to gain traction with the bulk of the emergent left. Everybody is put off by the admiration she's garnered among certain right-wing circles, from folk like Steve Bannon. Where's her base really going to come from?

[Telconi]

Not very familiar with Gabbard, but I get the impression she's probably a little bit too dovish for the right of the Democratic party to be their first choice, and too suspect in terms of her views on Islam and her friendship with Narendra Modi to gain traction with the bulk of the emergent left. Everybody is put off by the admiration she's garnered among certain right-wing circles, from folk like Steve Bannon. Where's her base really going to come from?

Moderates who are thrilled to have a Democrat they can support.

[Ism]

Leaving aside the disagreements - and the slightly heated thread rhetoric - over her actual politics, I don't for a second think that Tulsi Gabbard has the slightest chance of being elected president in 2020.

I just don't think the United States is going to elect a 39-year-old* half-Polynesian vegetarian Hindu woman from American Samoa who represents Hawaii in Congress as its president.

Is that fair? Almost certainly not. Is it realistic? Likely yes.

Even leaving aside all of the other factors, she'd be the youngest person elected to the presidency by a good four years (beating Kennedy; Theodore Roosevelt was a year younger than Kennedy on assuming office, but wasn't elected). She'd also only the be the second person to be elected to to the presidency straight from the House; Garfield was the other, and even he was a senator-elect at the time. Surely she has an eye on either 2024 or the vice-presidency rather than seriously thinking she's going to win the Democratic nomination for 2020.


*Age at the 2020 election, if I'm calculating correctly.

I could see her potentially appealing to a niche group of voters and making it to New Hampshire, before running out of funds and essentially being forced to dropout. Middle America, Establishment Dems & Suburban Dems wouldn't go for her, for better or worse.

I thought she was supposed to appeal to Middle America?

[Major-Tom]

I could see her potentially appealing to a niche group of voters and making it to New Hampshire, before running out of funds and essentially being forced to dropout. Middle America, Establishment Dems & Suburban Dems wouldn't go for her, for better or worse.

I thought she was supposed to appeal to Middle America?

Perhaps some of her populistic credentials could bolster her in that regard, but the public perception and image she has crafted and would continue to craft during the primaries, would, in my humble opinion, simply not resonate with swing voters and former Trump voters in Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin etc etc.

[Telconi]

I thought she was supposed to appeal to Middle America?

Perhaps some of her populistic credentials could bolster her in that regard, but the public perception and image she has crafted and would continue to craft during the primaries, would, in my humble opinion, simply not resonate with swing voters and former Trump voters in Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin etc etc.

I also think she will likely shift to a more cookie cutter Democrat platform.

[Thermodolia]

So? I’m fine if people don’t personally agree with things but believe that the government shouldn’t interfere. I’m that way with abortion.


No she hasn’t been. She’s only been pro-gay since the mid 2010s.


You aren’t in the center dude.


She makes racist jokes about people and she only changed to pro gay because it was politically expedient to do so.


Ya this Jew isn’t seeing. Maybe you could support your bullshit claim?


She’s not a right wing extremist masquerading as a leftist. She’s just not a super liberal SJW.

Keep your head in the sand all you want. It still won't make you right.

And as a Jew, I know antisemitism when I see it. Tulsi has it in spades.

Then show your evidence. If you have no evidence then you are either a liar or you foolishly believed someone else.

And I know I'm not in the center. But I also know that I'm not far left. I'm more in between the two; in other words, a Progressive.

A progressive isn’t in between the far left and the center

[Horatius Cocles]

In order of whom I'd vote for:

1. Sanders
2. Warren
3. Brown/Gabbard

1 and 2 can sometimes flip flop. On the whole, I define myself best as a Social Democrat. I want a progressive candidate to win, so I'm not that excited by Biden & co. The right will rip into a progressive candidate, that's a given.

[Valrifell]

I find it ironic and glorious that Ojeda is more popular than Castro, and Delaney.


At least from our political community here.

Our political community is super niche and involved/informed, the layman still has no idea that Ojeda even exists.

[Telconi]

Judging by the Democrat offerings it's looking like Ojeda is the only one I could see getting behind, while Gabbard has done pluses. I think she won't survive any primary as she is now.

[Thermodolia]

I find it ironic and glorious that Ojeda is more popular than Castro, and Delaney.


At least from our political community here.

Our political community is super niche and involved/informed, the layman still has no idea that Ojeda even exists.

He’s already held a good few rallies. So he’s trying to change that.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If the actual elections are anything like this thread then the primaries will be so damaging we'd be fucked regardless of who we picked.

"Yer candidate would only win in NY and CA" is as thoughtful and conversation-motivating as "your candidate's a fucking bigot" (weird that everyone loves that point regardless)

That is to say, not at all.

I've been saying this for a while now. Tbh I think the next year or two are gonna be as bad, if not worse, for the Dems than 2015/16 was for the GOP.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

That's a lotta votes for Trump, not going to lie...

[Valrifell]

If the actual elections are anything like this thread then the primaries will be so damaging we'd be fucked regardless of who we picked.

"Yer candidate would only win in NY and CA" is as thoughtful and conversation-motivating as "your candidate's a fucking bigot" (weird that everyone loves that point regardless)

That is to say, not at all.

I've been saying this for a while now. Tbh I think the next year or two are gonna be as bad, if not worse, for the Dems than 2015/16 was for the GOP.

I appreciate the optimism, but I think taking all branches of government is out of reach for now.

[Valrifell]

That's a lotta votes for Trump, not going to lie...

It looks larger than it actually is because the Democratic option is split four other ways. The more candidates that jump in, the worse it will look, but keep in mind that 61% of posters don't want the Donald.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

That's a lotta votes for Trump, not going to lie...

It looks larger than it actually is because the Democratic option is split four other ways. The more candidates that jump in, the worse it will look, but keep in mind that 61% of posters don't want the Donald.

And that's on a forum with a substantial lean towards the left (and to an extent Democrats) though.

[Valrifell]

It looks larger than it actually is because the Democratic option is split four other ways. The more candidates that jump in, the worse it will look, but keep in mind that 61% of posters don't want the Donald.

And that's on a forum with a substantial lean towards the left (and to an extent Democrats) though.

But also in an Internet climate which has popularized right-leaning creators and rhetoric since 2016. Ever since the alt-right blurred the line between meme and propaganda, essentially. NSG's lean has diminished since I've been here, I can tell you that much.