Quest for the Presidency (2020 Edition) - Page 18

**diamelsx** · January 16th, 2019, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian249x

This is a surprise?

No, not a surprise at all. The only time is going to be a surprise these days is when people don't decide to run. By the way I did not talk about this one running but if he hits the baekstage he might become somewhat of a factor. I'm not saying he's going to win, but he will definitely put himself on people's radar. Ojeda

**Arturo2nd** · January 16th, 2019, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamelsx

No, not a surprise at all. The only time is going to be a surprise these days is when people don't decide to run. By the way I did not talk about this one running but if he hits the baekstage he might become somewhat of a factor. I'm not saying he's going to win, but he will definitely put himself on people's radar. Ojeda

Hey, I like this guy. Of course, his background is a little limited, too.

Too bad H R McMaster won't run. He has never voted and hasn't had a political affiliation, but his wife is a staunch Democrat.`The trouble with his National Security Advisor gig under Trump is that his real personality wasn't shown to the public. He can be really funny, and is a humble and down to earth guy. Of course, he is borderline scary smart, which also didn't become evident when he was trying to serve the country under Trump's command.

**SanteeFats** · January 16th, 2019, 05:07 PM

Well I just hope that the 2020 D circus is as much fun as the R's in 2016.

Quackerson · January 17th, 2019, 01:42 AM

Well, there's really very little downside to running, even if any given candidate doesn't have a realistic chance in securing the nomination of their party (much less win in the general election).

If you're a current elected official like Gillibrand, forming an "exploratory committee" to raise money for a "possible" 2020 run (as Brian249x says, she has essentially been running since the day after Hillary lost in 2016 anyway) is probably more interesting than hanging around the US Capitol getting things done...you know, actually doing what she was elected to do.

Her performance on Colbert was less than inspiring, and she offered nothing other than boilerplate centrist political piffle when asked why she wanted to be president.

Somebody commented in early 2017 that if Obama and Hillary couldn't get Hillary elected in 2016, it seems less than likely that Obama-Lite (Booker) and Hillary-Lite (Gillibrand) will get the job done in 2020.

**Devius** · January 21st, 2019, 02:16 PM

Democratic senator Kamala Harris, who represents California, says she will run for president in the 2020 election.

Senator Harris, who was elected in 2016, previously served as the state's attorney general.

"I love my country," she told ABC's Good Morning America, adding she would "fight for the best of who we are".

A vocal critic of President Donald Trump, she is the fifth Democrat to join the battle for the party's nomination in the 2020 election.

Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tulsi Gabbard and John Delaney have also announced they are intending to run.

Details:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46947839

**diamelsx** · January 25th, 2019, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamelsx

By the way I did not talk about this one running but if he hits the baekstage he might become somewhat of a factor. I'm not saying he's going to win, but he will definitely put himself on people's radar. Ojeda

FORMER WEST VIRGINIA State Sen. Richard Ojeda ended his long-shot presidential bid on Friday. A leader of the state’s teachers strikes last year, Ojeda concluded that the campaign ultimately wasn’t winnable and told his supporters that he could no longer ask people to contribute money to a cause he thought was lost.

“I don’t want to see people send money to a campaign that’s probably not going to get off the ground,” he said in a video he recorded and provided to The Intercept and The Young Turks.

**scoundrel** · January 25th, 2019, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quackerson

Well, there's really very little downside to running, even if any given candidate doesn't have a realistic chance in securing the nomination of their party (much less win in the general election).

If you're a current elected official like Gillibrand, forming an "exploratory committee" to raise money for a "possible" 2020 run (as Brian249x says, she has essentially been running since the day after Hillary lost in 2016 anyway) is probably more interesting than hanging around the US Capitol getting things done...you know, actually doing what she was elected to do.

Her performance on Colbert was less than inspiring, and she offered nothing other than boilerplate centrist political piffle when asked why she wanted to be president.

Somebody commented in early 2017 that if Obama and Hillary couldn't get Hillary elected in 2016, it seems less than likely that Obama-Lite (Booker) and Hillary-Lite (Gillibrand) will get the job done in 2020.

You might be right, but I would point out that if she bothers to campaign, speak, debate, meet voters and talk meaningfully about issues which impact their lives, she's bound to do better than Hillary Clinton in key battleground states which Ms Clinton barely even visited.

**Devius** · January 28th, 2019, 01:58 PM

The former CEO of coffee chain Starbucks has said he is "seriously considering" running for president.

Howard Schultz, who stepped down as the firm's boss last year, says he is considering running as a centrist independent candidate in 2020.

In a series of tweets, he said the current two political parties in the US were "more divided than ever".

"Let's discuss how we can come together to create opportunities for more people," he posted.

During an interview with CBS' 60 Minutes programme, Mr Schultz said he had been a "lifelong Democrat" but criticised the current two-party dominated system.

"We're living at a most-fragile time not only the fact that this president is not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what's necessary on behalf of the American people and are engaged, every single day, in revenge politics," he said.

Details:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47026374

**scoundrel** · January 28th, 2019, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devius

The former CEO of coffee chain Starbucks has said he is "seriously considering" running for president.

Howard Schultz, who stepped down as the firm's boss last year, says he is considering running as a centrist independent candidate in 2020.

In a series of tweets, he said the current two political parties in the US were "more divided than ever".

"Let's discuss how we can come together to create opportunities for more people," he posted.

During an interview with CBS' 60 Minutes programme, Mr Schultz said he had been a "lifelong Democrat" but criticised the current two-party dominated system.

"We're living at a most-fragile time not only the fact that this president is not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what's necessary on behalf of the American people and are engaged, every single day, in revenge politics," he said.

Details:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47026374

I agree with quite a bit of what Mr Schultz has said, especially about revenge politics. The whole "Make America Great Again" spiel is negative and bitter - clearly inspired by rage that Mr Obama got elected twice. I'm sure not everyone was reacting to the fact that a black president got elected and couldn't be prevented from governing no matter how petulantly the Republican HoR and Senate sought to show nil cooperation. But it would be naive to ignore the racism which drove many to feel that America had stopped being great. Revenge was a big motive behind the failed attempt to "repeal Obamacare" - the very name speaks of fierce resentment that the man they so despised brought in a major health reform despite their straining every nerve to defeat him.

Mr Trump spoke expansively about a healthcare reform that was going to be really great and was going to take care of everybody. But there was no consensus on the Republican side on anything except repealing what had been brought in - no replacement measure was supported by a majority. Had Mr McCain not risen from his deathbed to vote it down, this would have been passed and a really irresponsible destruction of access to heathcare would have taken place. Again, a lot of this was rejectionist revenge politics.

It isn't as though the Democrats aren't doing it too. Mrs Pelosi caught no end of flak from her own side for not making a parade of refusing to cooperate with the Trump administration - her willingness to engage and be "bi-partisan" was seen by these people as weak and a betrayal. They think its clever to make foul mouthed rants about impeaching Mr Trump [they want to do it even if he's innocent]. Mrs Pelosi knew more than they know when Mrs Pelosi was 5 years old. They are in most cases never going to learn because they already know it all - they are much more like Mr Trump than they realise. You can't learn from your mistakes if you don't think you are making any.

The two parties used to share and recognise a strong sense of a higher responsibility. Revenge politics did away with that. Nowadays, Republicans who work with Democrats to achieve common policy goals are singled out for primary election challenges by the Tea Party. That's how the game is played now.

**diamelsx** · January 29th, 2019, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoundrel

It isn't as though the Democrats aren't doing it too. Mrs Pelosi caught no end of flak from her own side for not making a parade of refusing to cooperate with the Trump administration - her willingness to engage and be "bi-partisan" was seen by these people as weak and a betrayal. They think its clever to make foul mouthed rants about impeaching Mr Trump [they want to do it even if he's innocent]. Mrs Pelosi knew more than they know when Mrs Pelosi was 5 years old. They are in most cases never going to learn because they already know it all - they are much more like Mr Trump than they realise. You can't learn from your mistakes if you don't think you are making any.

In order for me to agree with you on this I would have to believe that the voters are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hill

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that Speaker Nancy Pelosi - not President Donald Trump - plummeted most in popularity during the 35-day government shutdown.

The new poll shows the Speaker of the House experienced a 6-point drop in her approval rating. Only 28 percent of Americans rated Pelosi as favorable, while 47 percent rated her as unfavorable - a stunning 19 percent "upside down" unfavorable figure.

source

January 21st, 2019, 02:16 PM	#175
Devius Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: It's a London Thing.... Posts: 23,518 Thanks: 142,141 Thanked 228,390 Times in 23,553 Posts	Democrat Kamala Harris announces presidential run Democratic senator Kamala Harris, who represents California, says she will run for president in the 2020 election. Senator Harris, who was elected in 2016, previously served as the state's attorney general. "I love my country," she told ABC's Good Morning America, adding she would "fight for the best of who we are". A vocal critic of President Donald Trump, she is the fifth Democrat to join the battle for the party's nomination in the 2020 election. Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tulsi Gabbard and John Delaney have also announced they are intending to run. Details: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46947839 __________________ "I've had it with them, I've had it with you, I've had it with ALL THIS - I WANT ROOM SERVICE!* I want the club sandwich, I want the cold Mexican beer, I want a $10,000-a-night hooker!"* Johnny Mnemonic (1995)

January 28th, 2019, 01:58 PM	#178
Devius Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: It's a London Thing.... Posts: 23,518 Thanks: 142,141 Thanked 228,390 Times in 23,553 Posts	Howard Schultz: Ex-Starbucks CEO considers presidential run The former CEO of coffee chain Starbucks has said he is "seriously considering" running for president. Howard Schultz, who stepped down as the firm's boss last year, says he is considering running as a centrist independent candidate in 2020. In a series of tweets, he said the current two political parties in the US were "more divided than ever". "Let's discuss how we can come together to create opportunities for more people," he posted. During an interview with CBS' 60 Minutes programme, Mr Schultz said he had been a "lifelong Democrat" but criticised the current two-party dominated system. "We're living at a most-fragile time not only the fact that this president is not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what's necessary on behalf of the American people and are engaged, every single day, in revenge politics," he said. Details: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47026374 __________________ "I've had it with them, I've had it with you, I've had it with ALL THIS - I WANT ROOM SERVICE!* I want the club sandwich, I want the cold Mexican beer, I want a $10,000-a-night hooker!"* Johnny Mnemonic (1995)

January 16th, 2019, 05:07 PM	#173
SanteeFats Super Moderator Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Santee, Ca Posts: 60,849 Thanks: 281,903 Thanked 814,216 Times in 60,895 Posts	Well I just hope that the 2020 D circus is as much fun as the R's in 2016.

January 17th, 2019, 01:42 AM	#174
Quackerson Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 587 Thanks: 1,559 Thanked 4,320 Times in 577 Posts	Well, there's really very little downside to running, even if any given candidate doesn't have a realistic chance in securing the nomination of their party (much less win in the general election). If you're a current elected official like Gillibrand, forming an "exploratory committee" to raise money for a "possible" 2020 run (as Brian249x says, she has essentially been running since the day after Hillary lost in 2016 anyway) is probably more interesting than hanging around the US Capitol getting things done...you know, actually doing what she was elected to do. Her performance on Colbert was less than inspiring, and she offered nothing other than boilerplate centrist political piffle when asked why she wanted to be president. Somebody commented in early 2017 that if Obama and Hillary couldn't get Hillary elected in 2016, it seems less than likely that Obama-Lite (Booker) and Hillary-Lite (Gillibrand) will get the job done in 2020.