ADVERTISEMENT

Who will be the Democratic Presidential Nominee?

wmnesbitt

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2014
18,763
32,169
113
Waxhaw, NC
Seeing Biden sliding, and I don't think the slide will stop for a while.

Seeing Bernie having some major health issues

Seeing Warren and Buttigieg increasing their fundraising.

This could wind up falling into a battle between Warren and Buttigieg for the top spot.

Who would have thought this 6 months ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rychek4
Seeing Biden sliding, and I don't think the slide will stop for a while.

Seeing Bernie having some major health issues

Seeing Warren and Buttigieg increasing their fundraising.

This could wind up falling into a battle between Warren and Buttigieg for the top spot.

Who would have thought this 6 months ago.
Buttigieg is probably the most electable. Warren is probably the most likely. I think your analysis is pretty spot on.
 
Seeing Biden sliding, and I don't think the slide will stop for a while.

Seeing Bernie having some major health issues

Seeing Warren and Buttigieg increasing their fundraising.

This could wind up falling into a battle between Warren and Buttigieg for the top spot.

Who would have thought this 6 months ago.

i dont think the actual democratic nominee is running yet.

biden done. (corruption charges)
bernie done.(health issues)(platform too left)
warren done.(lied on college applications)(sexual fetishes)(platform too left)
 
Buttigieg is probably the most electable. Warren is probably the most likely. I think your analysis is pretty spot on.

I disagree - I think Biden is still the most electable as of right now (10/7/2019, 9:12 AM). I think a lot of people who don't 'love' Trump would be willing to vote for Biden as the "safe" bet. Buttigieg has baggage - right or wrong - that a lot of people will see as insurmountable. It's gonna be an issue no matter how many people scream that it shouldn't be. There is concern within the party that Warren (the presumed favorite right now) is too far left. Apparently there is some support for Michelle Obama to run.

But Biden is slipping and the impeachment talk (let's remember where all of this started - with Biden's kid supposedly leveraging his dad for business in the Ukraine) probably isn't helping him. At this point I don't know that the Dems even have a decent candidate that can beat Trump. But then again, who knows. Trump tends to do stupid crap that loses him support, then the other side does stupid crap that gains Trump support. If I were his campaign manager I'd change the password on Trump's twitter and refuse to tell him what it is.

Yang is pretty far out there but he might be the smartest of the bunch. The Starbucks guy could have been a good candidate maybe.

Sanders is viewed as an "old white guy" which hurts him. Plus he's old as hell with health issues. And I doubt the DNC will support him - remember he's actually an independent in the Senate.

Beta, Spartacus, Gabbard (if she hasn't dropped out) have disappeared. Harris is WAY too far left. Steyer's ads have him coming across as a douchebag. Beyond that - hell, I can't remember who else is running right now.

This is an opinion piece but I've heard this same stuff other places:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-michelle-obama-run-liz-peek
 
Last edited:
I don't see anyone I'm lining up to vote for on the Dem side of things. Although @appalachiatiger, you are interesting me with these Warren sexual fetishes. This thread could actually deliver if you would enlighten us. I'm thinking it all starts off with Warren wearing her American Indian outfit in some basement/dungeon. .
 
  • Like
Reactions: appalachiatiger
I don't see anyone I'm lining up to vote for on the Dem side of things. Although @appalachiatiger, you are interesting me with these Warren sexual fetishes. This thread could actually deliver if you would enlighten us. I'm thinking it all starts off with Warren wearing her American Indian outfit in some basement/dungeon. .
I work in risk and control so Warren would at least be job security for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: appalachiatiger
I don't see anyone I'm lining up to vote for on the Dem side of things. Although @appalachiatiger, you are interesting me with these Warren sexual fetishes. This thread could actually deliver if you would enlighten us. I'm thinking it all starts off with Warren wearing her American Indian outfit in some basement/dungeon. .

I'm probably gonna regret posting this:

 
I don't see anyone I'm lining up to vote for on the Dem side of things. Although @appalachiatiger, you are interesting me with these Warren sexual fetishes. This thread could actually deliver if you would enlighten us. I'm thinking it all starts off with Warren wearing her American Indian outfit in some basement/dungeon. .

She is into whips and chains.

Just watch the way she moves around.

You can tell she is into that torture sex stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hopefultiger13
think of that

we got a presidents call with ukrainian president

we got a call of schiff with russians wanting dirty pics of a presidential candidate.

pot calling kettle black.
 
Wouldn't surprise me if the Wicked Witch Hillary doesn't swoop back in. Don't discount the power and control she has over the dnc.
Plus, in her mind, running would give her cover for all her crimes that will be exposed. Same thing Joe and the msm are trying to convice everyone of now.
 
Wouldn't surprise me if the Wicked Witch Hillary doesn't swoop back in. Don't discount the power and control she has over the dnc.
Plus, in her mind, running would give her cover for all her crimes that will be exposed. Same thing Joe and the msm are trying to convice everyone of now.
Hillary couldn't win now, the democrats eliminated super-delegates from their primaries.
 
Hillary couldn't win now, the democrats eliminated super-delegates from their primaries.
I agree she couldn't beat Trump, but neither can any of these other waaay far lefters.
True that last time she and dnc used the super delegates. This time, it could be something else. My point is that the Clintons know how to weild power. Remember Sandy Berger?
 
Seeing Biden sliding, and I don't think the slide will stop for a while.

Seeing Bernie having some major health issues

Seeing Warren and Buttigieg increasing their fundraising.

This could wind up falling into a battle between Warren and Buttigieg for the top spot.

Who would have thought this 6 months ago.

I dont know who it will be at this point, but I can tell you this... if Michelle Obama announced her candidacy tomorrow, the race would be over tomorrow.
 
if they dont slow down, hold a vote to formalize the impeachment process, the democrats will lose the house too.

be interesting to see if 218 democrats will commit political suicide.

clintons impeachment, in which the republicans included the democrats in the process, and with 11 felony counts, the senate still didnt impeach.

pelosi is a political moron. she has had power twice now and will again lose the house instantly

democrats hiring pelosi for a 2nd go round is the same as the gamecocks hiring muschump.
 
if they dont slow down, hold a vote to formalize the impeachment process, the democrats will lose the house too.

be interesting to see if 218 democrats will commit political suicide.

clintons impeachment, in which the republicans included the democrats in the process, and with 11 felony counts, the senate still didnt impeach.

pelosi is a political moron. she has had power twice now and will again lose the house instantly

democrats hiring pelosi for a 2nd go round is the same as the gamecocks hiring muschump.

as usual, your grasp of historical facts is grossly and embarrassingly incorrect.

The republicans involved the democrats? Wrong.

The republican controlled senate rejected the independent counsel that AG Janet Reno appointed to investigate the Clintons' association with Whitewater land holdings while Clinton was Governor. They then proceeded to appoint their own independent counsel - Ken Starr - who reported directly to Newt and the House.

Starr spent years investigating Clinton on many different matters. When he couldn't find anything on Whitewater he moved on to something else, then moved on again, and again.

Starr eventually would submit 11 articles of impeachment to the house, all related to Clinton's getting a blow job from a white house intern and lying about it. That was the first time that the democrats were involved in the process.

Only 2 of those articles were forwarded on to the Senate.

You really should read more and stop regurgitating what you watch on conservative right wing youtube channels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PrettyFlacko
as usual, your grasp of historical facts is grossly and embarrassingly incorrect.

The republicans involved the democrats? Wrong.

The republican controlled senate rejected the independent counsel that AG Janet Reno appointed to investigate the Clintons' association with Whitewater land holdings while Clinton was Governor. They then proceeded to appoint their own independent counsel - Ken Starr - who reported directly to Newt and the House.

Starr spent years investigating Clinton on many different matters. When he couldn't find anything on Whitewater he moved on to something else, then moved on again, and again.

Starr eventually would submit 11 articles of impeachment to the house, all related to Clinton's getting a blow job from a white house intern and lying about it. That was the first time that the democrats were involved in the process.

Only 2 of those articles were forwarded on to the Senate.

You really should read more and stop regurgitating what you watch on conservative right wing youtube channels.

I think you misunderstood his point. All he is talking about is the process to get to a formal impeachment inquiry. Every impeachment in history has involved a roll call vote on the house floor, the ability for the minority to call witnesses and to cross examine. That's not what is happening here.
 
I think you misunderstood his point. All he is talking about is the process to get to a formal impeachment inquiry. Every impeachment in history has involved a roll call vote on the house floor, the ability for the minority to call witnesses and to cross examine. That's not what is happening here.

I did not misunderstand.

1. in the clinton affair, repubs used Ken Starr - who had subpoena power - for years without including the dems. They held an impeachment vote after years of investigations.

2. during the clinton affair, the "rules" were that you had to hold a vote to start an impeachment inquiry. A vote had to be held to grant subpoena power. That rule was changed by the repubs when they last controlled the house. they changed it for their own benefit, and now that has backfired. The dems have no obligation to do that now. (karma is a bitch)

3. Trump is saying that if they hold a vote, he will cooperate with the investigation. Why would anyone believe anything Trump says? he has said many things that he ended up not doing. releasing his tax returns is a great example.
 
as usual, your grasp of historical facts is grossly and embarrassingly incorrect.

The republicans involved the democrats? Wrong.

The republican controlled senate rejected the independent counsel that AG Janet Reno appointed to investigate the Clintons' association with Whitewater land holdings while Clinton was Governor. They then proceeded to appoint their own independent counsel - Ken Starr - who reported directly to Newt and the House.

Starr spent years investigating Clinton on many different matters. When he couldn't find anything on Whitewater he moved on to something else, then moved on again, and again.

Starr eventually would submit 11 articles of impeachment to the house, all related to Clinton's getting a blow job from a white house intern and lying about it. That was the first time that the democrats were involved in the process.

Only 2 of those articles were forwarded on to the Senate.

You really should read more and stop regurgitating what you watch on conservative right wing youtube channels.

number 1 i followed the clinton impeachment very closely.

this is nothing like that. at least the republicans had respect for the process.

not allowing the republican committee members or the white house lega counsel involved in the process makes it a witch hunt in my eyes.

i also those parody was in.
 
2. yes they do.

if they fail to include the republicans in the process this will go nowhere in senate.

the white released the transcript. we dont need any political hacks to tell us what it says.

i read it. there is no quid pro quo. that document will carry more weight in court than someones liberal interpretation to connect dots.

ken starr investigation found facts.

robert mueller investigation found nothing.

these guys are doing this for america, they are doing this for a political party.
 
@nytigerfan

you are right. in 2015 the republicans did change the rules.

"This year (2015) House Republicans are changing the rules to give some chairmen unfettered authority to issue subpoenas unilaterally, adopting an abusive model embraced only by Senator Joe McCarthy, former Rep. Dan Burton, and Rep. Darrell Issa,” the lawmakers wrote. “To their credit, some well-functioning committees, such as the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, Intelligence, and Veterans Affairs, did not expand subpoena power for their chairmen.”

"At the time, Republican defended the rule change as necessary to effectively investigate the Obama administration.

The Obama administration has employed unprecedented delay tactics and in many cases an outright refusal to comply with legitimate committee oversight requests, which is why committees sought the deposition authority and are using the existing rules to give committee chairs greater latitude in issuing subpoenas,” said Doug Andres, then a spokesman for the House Rules Committee."

------https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/democrats-criticize-house-gop-subpoena-rules-115068

but bottom line is nothing is in exhibit A (mueller report) to impeach.

there is nothing in exhibit b transcript of phone call to impeach.

witnesses 1- no first hand knowledge, and descriptive account not in line with actual call. throw that testimony out.

bringing in witnesses 2-12 that was on the phone call is a waste of time. the judge(the senate) has the transcript. so nothing witness 2-12 has to say means nothing but opinion on an exhibit.

they have absolutely nothing.

i bet barr and durham come back with damning evidence against the DNC if the DNC cant get trump impeached.

has nothing to do with 2020. DNC along with hilary campaign are in deep shyt.
 
Last edited:
if it was ok for the president to sell uranium to the russians,

then its ok to ask ukrainian officials to investigate corruption.

if american lawmakers or american citizens are mixed up in this corruption so be it. if one is running for president then its a matter of national security.
 
I agree she couldn't beat Trump, but neither can any of these other waaay far lefters.
True that last time she and dnc used the super delegates. This time, it could be something else. My point is that the Clintons know how to weild power. Remember Sandy Berger?
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant Hillary couldn't win the nomination.
if it was ok for the president to sell uranium to the russians,

then its ok to ask ukrainian officials to investigate corruption.

if american lawmakers or american citizens are mixed up in this corruption so be it. if one is running for president then its a matter of national security.
Your last four posts are an almost illegible mix of grammar mistakes, spelling mistakes and conspiracy theories. No one here can take them seriously. I am not even trying to be a grammar nerd about this. You posted 4 times without finding the shift key.
 
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant Hillary couldn't win the nomination.

Your last four posts are an almost illegible mix of grammar mistakes, spelling mistakes and conspiracy theories. No one here can take them seriously. I am not even trying to be a grammar nerd about this. You posted 4 times without finding the shift key.

1- i hate using tablet keyboards. lots of mistakes. and could care less about being perfect on using english on a message board. ideas are more important imo.

2- con theories in your mind. how much will it hurt if its true?

o since pelosi said that this whistleblower document is absolute proof of campaign violation rules which she considers impeachable.

so why do you think she does not wanna bring the inquiry above ground?

2-
 
I dont know who it will be at this point, but I can tell you this... if Michelle Obama announced her candidacy tomorrow, the race would be over tomorrow.

In the general election she would be a strong candidate - but there's ways to attack her just like everyone else. Lack of experience being the key one. Second issue is that she is supposedly very private, so who knows what would come out, although most of it would have probably come out during her husband's campaigns.

She (Obama) would most likely smash the primary vote though. I get the feeling that not many people really like any of the options so far - and the ones that like one hate the rest. I think right now Biden would still be the most electable based off of the undecided voters and him being more center-left than way-out-past-the-freaking-bleachers left, but his elect-ability is falling fast. This Ukraine thing is gonna hurt him as much as it does Trump.

I think Trump knows that Biden is his biggest threat and that's why he's attacking him.

But I don't see it happening. After having been in the White House for 8 years with her husband, why on earth would she want to go back? I don't think it's a particularly fun job.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jroller
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant Hillary couldn't win the nomination.

She seems to think she can. FWIW I agree that she couldn't win the nomination, and if she got into the general it would probably end just like last time.

ETA - I forgot about the whole super-delegate thing.

But who the hell knows. In the general, Trump's stock goes up and down more than a kid on a trampoline.

But I look at the whole thing and think - "okay, 320 MILLION people in this country, and THIS is what we've got to pick from? Just send the damn meteor."

That's part of the reason I spend more time worrying about Clemson football than politics anymore.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rychek4
1- i hate using tablet keyboards. lots of mistakes. and could care less about being perfect on using english on a message board. ideas are more important imo.

2- con theories in your mind. how much will it hurt if its true?

o since pelosi said that this whistleblower document is absolute proof of campaign violation rules which she considers impeachable.

so why do you think she does not wanna bring the inquiry above ground?

2-
I think, if you took more time to construct your arguments, you might be thoughtful enough to come to different conclusions. The way ideas are presented is also important.
 
I think, if you took more time to construct your arguments, you might be thoughtful enough to come to different conclusions. The way ideas are presented is also important.

I'm just being as hasty and framing narratives exactly like the house democrats or any national equirer channel.
 
Elizabeth Warren is showing a lot of momentum and she's my favorite of the top 3, so I"m pretty happy. I'd like Buttigieg as well but he doesn't seem to be catching on.
 
tulsi gabbard.....

but once warren wins a poll,

the strip pole will come out...

i bet someone has pics.

a little native american woman being sexually dominated by a pilgrim.

she is a wild thang i hear- like that other girl into bongs and bangs.
 
but once warren wins a poll,

the strip pole will come out...

i bet someone has pics.

a little native american woman being sexually dominated by a pilgrim.
The moral bankruptcy of the GOP is real. Just look at comments like this.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT