Debate Now Democrats: If Not Hillary, then Who?

[haissem123]

yes, where are all the other real candidates besides this women? we need them bad. We can't afford another clinton on all fronts.

 

[Foxfyre]

yes, where are all the other real candidates besides this women? we need them bad. We can't afford another clinton on all fronts.

The problem is there isn't really anybody other than Hillary who is considered to be seriously running.

So if Hillary is out of the picture, and we assume that the Democratic candidate will win in 2016, can you think of a single Democrat you would want to be that candidate who wins?

 

[haissem123]

i don't want democrats or republicans any more. I want honest people that care for all not this or that half for money only.

 

[Foxfyre]

i don't want democrats or republicans any more. I want honest people that care for all not this or that half for money only.

So you aren't going to vote in 2016? Is that what you mean by this post? Or you will vote for a candidate in a third party? If so, that's cool. Liberty definitely includes supporting the candidate we believe in or not voting at all if we consider all choices unacceptable and we see no lesser of the evils offered.

However, the concept of the thread is that Hillary won't be the candidate but the Democratic candidate will win in 2016. A lot of us don't want that to happen, and a lot of us do want that to happen, but for purposes of this discussion that is what will happen.

So assuming that we know we will have a Democratic President elected in 2016 and that President won't be Hillary, who would you want it to be?

 

[haissem123]

I mean you idiots keep splitting the country in half as if we are supposed to group think on all issues and that's the game they keep their grand ol parties running on and over our backs with. wow you people are stupid. you might as well vote for slavery for yourselves, cause that's what we are getting from these two parties. whatever companies put them in win. doesn't matter what "country " the companies file their bogus taxes in either.

 

[Foxfyre]

From a January 30 Washington Post piece:

. . .Clinton trounces her potential primary rivals with 73 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, reinforcing a narrative of inevitability around her nomination if she runs. Vice President Biden is second with 12 percent, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) is third with 8 percent. . . .
For 2016 Hillary Clinton has commanding lead over Democrats GOP race wide open - The Washington Post​

So if we remove Hillary from the equation, who would be comfortable with Vice President Biden as President? Or Senator Elizabeth Warren?

 

[Foxfyre]

I mean you idiots keep splitting the country in half as if we are supposed to group think on all issues and that's the game they keep their grand ol parties running on and over our backs with. wow you people are stupid. you might as well vote for slavery for yourselves, cause that's what we are getting from these two parties. whatever companies put them in win. doesn't matter what "country " the companies file their bogus taxes in either.

Careful with the ad hominem Haissem. The question is not group think or the pros and cons of political parties.

Please focus on the single question that is the topic of this thread: If you know the Democrat will win the 2016 election and that Democrat is not Hillary Clinton, who do you want that Democrat to be?

 

[haissem123]

bidens a smart half wit bullshitter that keeps flubbing his way through his job as a public speaker, but behind closed doors I hear he's quite the deal maker. but all today's deal are against the vast majority of us so what good is that? Elizabeth sounds good but that won't get us anywhere with her standing alone.

 

[Foxfyre]

bidens a smart half wit bullshitter that keeps flubbing his way through his job as a public speaker, but behind closed doors I hear he's quite the deal maker. but all today's deal are against the vast majority of us so what good is that? Elizabeth sounds good but that won't get us anywhere with her standing alone.

But you would want to see Elizabeth as the Democrat who wins if we can't have Hillary and a Democrat will win? What is it that you like about Elizabeth?

 

[haissem123]

Seems to me she sees and tells the ugly truth of how we are being sold down the river at every turn. I haven't followed her much but she's more of a truth teller then most and a fighter for what seems right.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are there no Democrats at USMB who are interested in this topic?

Or is it harder for a Democrat to deal with having nobody they are enthusiastic about to put up if Hillary doesn't run?

 

[haissem123]

nobody cares who's running us to hell as long as my guy wins and girl on american idol from my state. lol. american idiots one and all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've been saying it for almost 2 years now, Hillary is far too right-wing for the Democrat base: she voted for Iraq and has missed the 2 Minute Hate on Free Enterprise. She was on the Board of Walmart ferchristsake!!!

I don't know how you can miss the big push for Lizzy Cheekbones, who is the female Obama, including a shady past of dubious claims, and a pathological liar who will do anything to further the Progressive Agenda

All valid reasons why you don't want certain people to be the nominee Frank. But let's assume for the purpose that the Democratic candidate, whomever it is, will be elected in 2016.

Who do you want that person to be?

Who I want would be Jack Kennedy. Unfortunately, he has no place in today's Democrat Party and would be disparaged as a Teaper by Boehner Republicans

I'd prefer to run against Lizzy "Cheekbones" Warren or Bernie Sander

Kennedy made some serious mistakes, but like Clinton, he was not a bad President. I also would not be dismayed if somebody like him was the Democratic nominee. But, as you point out, he isn't available.

So if we are resigned that a Democrat will be elected in 2016, and that Democrat won't be Hillary, is there anybody available now that you would prefer over all others?

I'm beginning to agree with that Boston Herald writer that the Democrats seem to have no bench at all. If their quarterback Hillary is out of the game, who do you send up?

Andy Cuomo has kept a low profile and since he's a Dem his scandals won't be reported. He's not obsessed with the Progressive Agenda -- at least not publicly. He might be the closest thing to another Bill Clinton

 

[Foxfyre]

I've been saying it for almost 2 years now, Hillary is far too right-wing for the Democrat base: she voted for Iraq and has missed the 2 Minute Hate on Free Enterprise. She was on the Board of Walmart ferchristsake!!!

I don't know how you can miss the big push for Lizzy Cheekbones, who is the female Obama, including a shady past of dubious claims, and a pathological liar who will do anything to further the Progressive Agenda

All valid reasons why you don't want certain people to be the nominee Frank. But let's assume for the purpose that the Democratic candidate, whomever it is, will be elected in 2016.

Who do you want that person to be?

Who I want would be Jack Kennedy. Unfortunately, he has no place in today's Democrat Party and would be disparaged as a Teaper by Boehner Republicans

I'd prefer to run against Lizzy "Cheekbones" Warren or Bernie Sander

Kennedy made some serious mistakes, but like Clinton, he was not a bad President. I also would not be dismayed if somebody like him was the Democratic nominee. But, as you point out, he isn't available.

So if we are resigned that a Democrat will be elected in 2016, and that Democrat won't be Hillary, is there anybody available now that you would prefer over all others?

I'm beginning to agree with that Boston Herald writer that the Democrats seem to have no bench at all. If their quarterback Hillary is out of the game, who do you send up?

Andy Cuomo has kept a low profile and since he's a Dem his scandals won't be reported. He's not obsessed with the Progressive Agenda -- at least not publicly. He might be the closest thing to another Bill Clinton

That's worth looking at I think. And he is at least considered as a potential candidate since On The Issues has pulled together some of his positions for scrutiny. He definitely has the name recognition. Would he be an obstructionist to any form of conservative initiatives to the extent that Obama has been? I think he probaby wouldn't be.

 

[BlackSand]

That's worth looking at I think. And he is at least considered as a potential candidate since On The Issues has pulled together some of his positions for scrutiny. He definitely has the name recognition. Would he be an obstructionist to any form of conservative initiatives to the extent that Obama has been? I think he probaby wouldn't be.

I would have to agree that he is probably a more savvy politician than President Obama ... But I am not sure that is what got the President elected.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's worth looking at I think. And he is at least considered as a potential candidate since On The Issues has pulled together some of his positions for scrutiny. He definitely has the name recognition. Would he be an obstructionist to any form of conservative initiatives to the extent that Obama has been? I think he probaby wouldn't be.

I would have to agree that he is probably a more savvy politician than President Obama ... But I am not sure that is what got the President elected.

.

Just checked Andrew Cuomo on some of the issues. He is a mixed bag on some things leaning right here and there. But mostly he is pretty far left liberal:

Some examples of his positions from "On the Issues":

Abortion:

•Codify state with federal law to allow 9th-month abortions. (May 2014)

•Let women make decision: pregnancy, adoption, or abortion. (Jan 2013)

•Fight for passage of the Reproductive Rights Act. (Nov 2010)

•Supports federal abortion funding. (Aug 2010)


Economy:

•2015 Opportunity Agenda: cut $1.7B taxes; add $1.5B programs. (Jan 2015)

•Economic Blueprint: growth via development projects. (Jan 2012)

•1990s HUD: Sued banks to make more mortgage loans. (Nov 2010)

•OpEd: 2001 HUD Fannie/Freddie policy led to mortgage crisis. (Apr 2010)

•Upstate economy will be a priority, not “caboose”. (Mar 2002)


Crime:

•Raise the Age: prosecute 16- and 17-year olds as juveniles. (Jan 2015)

•Recruit more minorities into law enforcement. (Jan 2015)

•End "stop and frisk"; it stigmatizes young black males. (Jan 2013)

•Videotape all interrogations for serious crimes. (Jan 2013)

•Prisons are not an economic development program. (Jan 2012)

•Collect DNA for all crimes, to exonerate the innocent. (Jan 2012)

•Incarcerating juveniles increases likelihood of offending. (Jan 2011)


On Drugs:

•Criminalize synthetic marijuana and designer drugs. (Jan 2013)

•Decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. (Jun 2012)

•One strike & you’re out drug policy for public housing. (Mar 2002)


On Energy:

•Led multi-state effort to lower carbon emissions by 45%. (Jul 2014)

•New York Greenbank: $1 billion to spur the clean economy. (Jan 2013)

•Lower carbon emissions via market-based cap-and-trade system. (Jan 2013)

•Focus more attention on exploiting our solar potential. (Jan 2012)

•Power for Jobs: use low cost hydropower. (Jan 2011)

•Comprehensive study before exploring Marcellus Shale. (Nov 2010)

•Our consumption of fossil fuels causes permanent changes. (Oct 2003)

•Repower old power plants to increase efficiency. (Oct 2003)

•Letter to Congress supporting renewable energy tax credit. (Nov 2011)

 

[HenryBHough]

There is no requirement that anybody be even a registered voter, much less a member of any political party to participate here, Henry, but do you really want a Pelosi/Reid or Pelosi/DiBlasio ticket? Why?

Remember, we're talking about a Democrat ticket. We are not talking about the outcome of an election for the actual office.

I do see Pelosi/Reid as being far more appropriate for The Democrat Party than either Ms. Clinton or Ms Fauxahontas. Ms. C is too old and appears to have issues related to her falls. Ms. Warren - just too phony. She has made a fool of herself over the tribal issue which she has substituted for any kind of experience beyond money manipulation.

Pelosi and Reid have extensive government experience. We may not like the outcome of that experience but neither would require four years of training wheels to tackle the job.

I tend more toward DiBlasio than to Reid, however, as he has already "made his bones" with his rapid-fire Socialization of New York. True, he is very light on executive experience but he IS articulate and he does know how to dress to suit the audience at hand without giving the appearance of "having to have been cleaned up". Pelosi is young enough that DiBlasio could anticipate her living long enough to show him the ropes but only if he could convince her to allow him to do more than cut ribbons to open parks. I do think he has sufficient chutzpah to make that happen.

Together they'd make a formidable (though not too formidable) pair. I believe their being in the race would make the general election more fair and balanced. Factors of immense value to their probable base.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are there no Democrats at USMB who are interested in this topic?

Or is it harder for a Democrat to deal with having nobody they are enthusiastic about to put up if Hillary doesn't run?

Starkey will chime in

 

[JakeStarkey]

He did it.

Foxfyre, congrats on a nicely organized debate.

If Hillary does not run, I believe the Dem contender will be Warren. Since she is very liberal I think she can be beat by a mainstream Republican or perhaps by a Paul or Rubio or Kasich.

Frank will now make a comment about me and the Democracy. He can't help himself.

I will move this down when he does.

 

[BlackSand]

Remember, we're talking about a Democrat ticket. We are not talking about the outcome of an election for the actual office.

I do see Pelosi/Reid as being far more appropriate for The Democrat Party than either Ms. Clinton or Ms Fauxahontas. Ms. C is too old and appears to have issues related to her falls. Ms. Warren - just too phony. She has made a fool of herself over the tribal issue which she has substituted for any kind of experience beyond money manipulation.

Pelosi and Reid have extensive government experience. We may not like the outcome of that experience but neither would require four years of training wheels to tackle the job.

I tend more toward DiBlasio than to Reid, however, as he has already "made his bones" with his rapid-fire Socialization of New York. True, he is very light on executive experience but he IS articulate and he does know how to dress to suit the audience at hand without giving the appearance of "having to have been cleaned up". Pelosi is young enough that DiBlasio could anticipate her living long enough to show him the ropes but only if he could convince her to allow him to do more than cut ribbons to open parks. I do think he has sufficient chutzpah to make that happen.

Together they'd make a formidable (though not too formidable) pair. I believe their being in the race would make the general election more fair and balanced. Factors of immense value to their probable base.

Hmm ... That is interesting because I really have never thought of Representative Pelosi having that much popularity outside the 12th District and absent the seniority she has in the House. I always thought they cut to her in news clips because she is a "steady oarsman" for the party ... Kind of like they used to cut to Senator McCain because they pretty much knew what he was going to say as well.

I never really put much stock in either of them because it always seemed so obvious they were just pack mules to me.
Thanks for the reminder that what I think really doesn't matter when it comes to who can get elected and why.

.