Debate Now Democrats: If Not Hillary, then Who?

[LoneLaugher]

And still not a single candidate has come up with a candidate if Hillary doesn't run. That Democratic bench must be really REALLY thin.

Again...have you read your own guidelines?

Translation: Hillary or bust

I would suggest that if a mature discussion regarding the political opinions of USMB members is desired.......the OP refrain from labeling her political opponents as "statists" in the thread guidelines. The civility was lost at that moment.

 

[Vigilante]

Besides the Hildebeasty, you have these.... whatever they are...to chose from as front runners for the DemocRATS!

At last resort, you can always go with the deranged, old pedophile!

I do not think for a minute that Joe Biden is a pedophile. Sometimes socially awkward and pretty clueless of how he appears on camera sometimes, but a pedophile? No.

So let's try to keep this civil, uninsulting and on point as much as reasonable, okay? We're looking for Democrats that would make the best President for the United States if we do elect a Democrat in 2016.

Do you need to see MORE pictures of the "WORLD'S DUMBEST POLITICIAN" with assorted children, I have them, you KNOW I do!

Is this the type of thing that qualifies for structured debate?

Of course, political satire has been part of politics since politics was invented...Puts across a TRUTH, or IDEA that is always worth discussion...such as...

Because I do it BETTER than any liberal on here, it will ALWAYS annoy the left!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Besides the Hildebeasty, you have these.... whatever they are...to chose from as front runners for the DemocRATS!

At last resort, you can always go with the deranged, old pedophile!

I do not think for a minute that Joe Biden is a pedophile. Sometimes socially awkward and pretty clueless of how he appears on camera sometimes, but a pedophile? No.

So let's try to keep this civil, uninsulting and on point as much as reasonable, okay? We're looking for Democrats that would make the best President for the United States if we do elect a Democrat in 2016.

Do you need to see MORE pictures of the "WORLD'S DUMBEST POLITICIAN" with assorted children, I have them, you KNOW I do!

Is this the type of thing that qualifies for structured debate?

Of course, political satire has been part of politics since politics was invented...Puts across a TRUTH, or IDEA that is always worth discussion...such as...

Because I do it BETTER than any liberal on here, it will ALWAYS annoy the left!

You think pasting cartoons that others create is doing something?

 

[Vigilante]

Besides the Hildebeasty, you have these.... whatever they are...to chose from as front runners for the DemocRATS!

At last resort, you can always go with the deranged, old pedophile!

I do not think for a minute that Joe Biden is a pedophile. Sometimes socially awkward and pretty clueless of how he appears on camera sometimes, but a pedophile? No.

So let's try to keep this civil, uninsulting and on point as much as reasonable, okay? We're looking for Democrats that would make the best President for the United States if we do elect a Democrat in 2016.

Do you need to see MORE pictures of the "WORLD'S DUMBEST POLITICIAN" with assorted children, I have them, you KNOW I do!

Is this the type of thing that qualifies for structured debate?

Of course, political satire has been part of politics since politics was invented...Puts across a TRUTH, or IDEA that is always worth discussion...such as...

Because I do it BETTER than any liberal on here, it will ALWAYS annoy the left!

You think pasting cartoons that others create is doing something?

If anything it's annoying you, or you wouldn't have opened your mouth about it! I particularly liked my depiction of your OTHER choices of political nut cases!

 

[Mac1958]

.

I don't know if this thread is still about the OP, but from what I've seen O'Malley appears to have the most juice if Warren isn't convinced to run.

Personally, I'd like to see Webb, but I don't see the Democrats taking him very seriously at this point.

.

 

[BlackSand]

.

I don't know if this thread is still about the OP, but from what I've seen O'Malley appears to have the most juice if Warren isn't convinced to run.

Personally, I'd like to see Webb, but I don't see the Democrats taking him very seriously at this point.

.

Are you talking about Jim Webb who was Senator from Virginia and NavSec?

Mother Jones calls Webb ... "The Rand Paul of the Democrat Party" ... But I don't put much stock in anything that Mother Jones publishes.
He was awarded the Navy Cross, Bronze Star and Silver Star though ... Purple Heart In Vietnam.

I still think that if he decided to retire from Congress ... That isn't a good sign that he would be in for the "long-haul".

.

 

[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?

I think this post does not adhere to the spirit of the OP's guidelines for debate.

Why? I haven't seen any Democrats posting until now. The premise of the OP is that the Democrats have no bench. There doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for anybody else out there if Hillary doesn't run. It isn't pejorative, ad hominem, or insulting to note that. It just is.

The GOP has the opposite problem. The field is so crowded with potential candidates that no single one of them is able to gain much traction.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I don't know if this thread is still about the OP, but from what I've seen O'Malley appears to have the most juice if Warren isn't convinced to run.

Personally, I'd like to see Webb, but I don't see the Democrats taking him very seriously at this point.

.

Are you talking about Jim Webb who was Senator from Virginia and NavSec?

Mother Jones calls Webb ... "The Paul Rand of the Democrat Party" ... But I don't put much stock in anything that Mother Jones publishes.
He was awarded the Navy Cross, Bronze Star and Silver Star though ... Purple Heart In Vietnam.

I still think that if he decided to retire from Congress ... That isn't a good sign that he would be in for the "long-haul".

.

Yeah, that may be a factor. Also, I know that many Democrats don't like him because he dared to point out that there are elements in the party that divide people by race for political advantage. Holy crap, that must have pissed many of them off. He's the one candidate from either "major" party I'd vote for.

I'm not holding my breath on him, O'Malley seems more likely right now.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

I think this post does not adhere to the spirit of the OP's guidelines for debate.

Why? I haven't seen any Democrats posting until now. The premise of the OP is that the Democrats have no bench. There doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for anybody else out there if Hillary doesn't run. It isn't pejorative, ad hominem, or insulting to note that. It just is.

The GOP has the opposite problem. The field is so crowded with potential candidates that no single one of them is able to gain much traction.

You want some liberal replies? I'm not a Democrat. And....I'm not a "statist". Take the word statist out of the OP thread rules and I will give you one.

 

[BlackSand]

You want some liberal replies? I'm not a Democrat. And....I'm not a "statist". Take the word statist out of the OP thread rules and I will give you one.

Are you suggesting the use of the word "liberal" is required for you to indicate who you would like to be the candidate?
Throw out a name and perhaps I can help you come up with a good reason to vote for them without using the word "liberal".


.

 

[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?

I think this post does not adhere to the spirit of the OP's guidelines for debate.

Why? I haven't seen any Democrats posting until now. The premise of the OP is that the Democrats have no bench. There doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for anybody else out there if Hillary doesn't run. It isn't pejorative, ad hominem, or insulting to note that. It just is.

The GOP has the opposite problem. The field is so crowded with potential candidates that no single one of them is able to gain much traction.

You want some liberal replies? I'm not a Democrat. And....I'm not a "statist". Take the word statist out of the OP thread rules and I will give you one.

No I don't want any liberal or conservative replies. The definition in the OP was provided to settle any disputes in advance in case some members wanted the thread to be about semantics instead of the thread topic. It was not applied to either Democrats or Republicans.

The topic of this thread is a discussion of what appears to be an extremely limited 'bench' for Democrats if Hillary doesn't run, and who should be added to that 'bench'? In other words, if you want to vote Democrat and Hillary doesn't run, who do you want to see at the top of the ticket?

And, for purposes of discussion, we are also hypothetically proposing that the Democrat will win in 2016. So that makes who wins the Democratic nomination important for Republicans and others as well.

 

[Foxfyre]

.

I don't know if this thread is still about the OP, but from what I've seen O'Malley appears to have the most juice if Warren isn't convinced to run.

Personally, I'd like to see Webb, but I don't see the Democrats taking him very seriously at this point.

.

Are you talking about Jim Webb who was Senator from Virginia and NavSec?

Mother Jones calls Webb ... "The Paul Rand of the Democrat Party" ... But I don't put much stock in anything that Mother Jones publishes.
He was awarded the Navy Cross, Bronze Star and Silver Star though ... Purple Heart In Vietnam.

I still think that if he decided to retire from Congress ... That isn't a good sign that he would be in for the "long-haul".

.

Yeah, that may be a factor. Also, I know that many Democrats don't like him because he dared to point out that there are elements in the party that divide people by race for political advantage. Holy crap, that must have pissed many of them off. He's the one candidate from either "major" party I'd vote for.

I'm not holding my breath on him, O'Malley seems more likely right now.

.

O'Malley has surfaced in a number of discussions. But I am a political junky and I had never heard of him before starting this thread. Does he have sufficient name recognition to be a viable candidate?

 

[BlackSand]

O'Malley has surfaced in a number of discussions. But I am a political junky and I had never heard of him before starting this thread. Does he have sufficient name recognition to be a viable candidate?

Nobody knew who President Clinton was before he popped up and went two terms.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You want some liberal replies? I'm not a Democrat. And....I'm not a "statist". Take the word statist out of the OP thread rules and I will give you one.

Are you suggesting the use of the word "liberal" is required for you to indicate who you would like to be the candidate?
Throw out a name and perhaps I can help you come up with a good reason to vote for them without using the word "liberal".


.

No. That is not what I am suggesting.

 

[Foxfyre]

O'Malley has surfaced in a number of discussions. But I am a political junky and I had never heard of him before starting this thread. Does he have sufficient name recognition to be a viable candidate?

Nobody knew who President Clinton was before he popped up and went two terms.

.

Well there is something to say for that too. But Bill definitely was the 'anointed one' selected and groomed to head the ticket in 1992. Just as Hillary is the 'anointed one' now.

Powerful forces were terrified that Jerry Brown was going to achieve momentum in 1992 and Clinton was their best bet to ensure that Brown didn't get the nomination. The other heavy hitters that year were Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey, and Tom Harkin, all fairly well known but finishing well behind Bill who carried 35 states once he was the designated choice of the party.

So if Hillary's e-mail problems or other issues sufficiently damage her viability, who will the Democrats put up as the viable option? I don't see them showing a lot of enthusiasm for Uncle Joe. Or Elizabeth Warren for that matter. And only Clinton, Biden, and Warren have a great deal of name recognition at this time.

 

[BlackSand]

You want some liberal replies? I'm not a Democrat. And....I'm not a "statist". Take the word statist out of the OP thread rules and I will give you one.

Are you suggesting the use of the word "liberal" is required for you to indicate who you would like to be the candidate?
Throw out a name and perhaps I can help you come up with a good reason to vote for them without using the word "liberal".


.

No. That is not what I am suggesting.

Never heard of him/her ... Would No be the whole name?
What district are they from (if they currently hold office) ... Are they a Democrat or possibly a candidate that would win the Democrat nomination by unseating the current power structure?

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

I think this post does not adhere to the spirit of the OP's guidelines for debate.

Why? I haven't seen any Democrats posting until now. The premise of the OP is that the Democrats have no bench. There doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for anybody else out there if Hillary doesn't run. It isn't pejorative, ad hominem, or insulting to note that. It just is.

The GOP has the opposite problem. The field is so crowded with potential candidates that no single one of them is able to gain much traction.

You want some liberal replies? I'm not a Democrat. And....I'm not a "statist". Take the word statist out of the OP thread rules and I will give you one.

No I don't want any liberal or conservative replies. The definition in the OP was provided to settle any disputes in advance in case some members wanted the thread to be about semantics instead of the thread topic. It was not applied to either Democrats or Republicans.

The topic of this thread is a discussion of what appears to be an extremely limited 'bench' for Democrats if Hillary doesn't run, and who should be added to that 'bench'? In other words, if you want to vote Democrat and Hillary doesn't run, who do you want to see at the top of the ticket?

The bench for the Democrats is plenty deep. There are a number of potential candidates for the Democratic party. O'Malley, Warren, Webb and Sanders have all been urged to run by various segments of the party. Joe Biden is a possibility. Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mark Warner Brian Schweitzer and Amy Klobuchar have all got what it takes to earn serious consideration. And.....in spite of Biden's reputation for gaffes and schtick......not a single one of them is a nutjob clown.

Unlike the GOP, the Democrats have a clear front runner. Clinton has the name recognition, the background and the financial support to mount a fierce campaign. That is why you haven't seen the media attention focused on any of the others.

Now.....who would I like to see in the White House if Clinton bows out of the race and a Democrat is to win? Elizabeth Warren. She is, first and foremost, brilliant. By far the most intelligent of the field. She gets it when it comes to how our economy should be managed in order to fire up the engine of the middle class. She is pragmatic.....and thus would be able to handle foreign policy matters. She communicates exceptionally well......even when addressing complex issues. She oozes integrity.

Problem......she isn't going to run.

 

[Foxfyre]

.

I don't know if this thread is still about the OP, but from what I've seen O'Malley appears to have the most juice if Warren isn't convinced to run.

Personally, I'd like to see Webb, but I don't see the Democrats taking him very seriously at this point.

.

Are you talking about Jim Webb who was Senator from Virginia and NavSec?

Mother Jones calls Webb ... "The Rand Paul of the Democrat Party" ... But I don't put much stock in anything that Mother Jones publishes.
He was awarded the Navy Cross, Bronze Star and Silver Star though ... Purple Heart In Vietnam.

I still think that if he decided to retire from Congress ... That isn't a good sign that he would be in for the "long-haul".

.

James Webb (on the issues)

I'm not seeing much Rand Paulishness here folks. . . .

Abortion

•Supports Roe v. Wade and abortion rights. (Jun 2006)

•Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)

•Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)

•Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)

•Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)

•Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)


Economy

•Top of economy doing great; but workers not. (Jan 2007)

•Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

•Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)

•Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)

•Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)

•Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (Mar 2007)

•Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy. (Feb 2008)


Civil Rights

•Affirmative action should apply to African-Americans only. (Sep 2006)

•Supports civil unions; opposes constitutional ban. (Jun 2006)

•Opposes constitutional ban of gay marriage. (Jun 2006)

•Government’s power should end at my front door. (Apr 2006)

•Realign politics by union of Scots-Irish & African Americans. (Jan 2006)

•ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays. (Jun 2009)


Corporations

•GOP puts corporate interests first; Dems put workers first. (Apr 2006)

•Rated 86% by UFCW, indicating an anti-management/pro-labor record. (May 2012)


More here:

James Webb on the Issues

 

[LoneLaugher]

You want some liberal replies? I'm not a Democrat. And....I'm not a "statist". Take the word statist out of the OP thread rules and I will give you one.

Are you suggesting the use of the word "liberal" is required for you to indicate who you would like to be the candidate?
Throw out a name and perhaps I can help you come up with a good reason to vote for them without using the word "liberal".


.

No. That is not what I am suggesting.

Never heard of him/her ... Would No be the whole name?
What district are they from (if they currently hold office) ... Are they a Democrat or possibly a candidate that would win the Democrat nomination by unseating the current power structure?

.

Are you feeling OK?

The phrase is "Democratic nomination".

 

[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?

I think this post does not adhere to the spirit of the OP's guidelines for debate.

Why? I haven't seen any Democrats posting until now. The premise of the OP is that the Democrats have no bench. There doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for anybody else out there if Hillary doesn't run. It isn't pejorative, ad hominem, or insulting to note that. It just is.

The GOP has the opposite problem. The field is so crowded with potential candidates that no single one of them is able to gain much traction.

You want some liberal replies? I'm not a Democrat. And....I'm not a "statist". Take the word statist out of the OP thread rules and I will give you one.

No I don't want any liberal or conservative replies. The definition in the OP was provided to settle any disputes in advance in case some members wanted the thread to be about semantics instead of the thread topic. It was not applied to either Democrats or Republicans.

The topic of this thread is a discussion of what appears to be an extremely limited 'bench' for Democrats if Hillary doesn't run, and who should be added to that 'bench'? In other words, if you want to vote Democrat and Hillary doesn't run, who do you want to see at the top of the ticket?

The bench for the Democrats is plenty deep. There are a number of potential candidates for the Democratic party. O'Malley, Warren, Webb and Sanders have all been urged to run by various segments of the party. Joe Biden is a possibility. Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mark Warner Brian Schweitzer and Amy Klobuchar have all got what it takes to earn serious consideration. And.....in spite of Biden's reputation for gaffes and schtick......not a single one of them is a nutjob clown.

Unlike the GOP, the Democrats have a clear front runner. Clinton has the name recognition, the background and the financial support to mount a fierce campaign. That is why you haven't seen the media attention focused on any of the others.

Now.....who would I like to see in the White House if Clinton bows out of the race and a Democrat is to win? Elizabeth Warren. She is, first and foremost, brilliant. By far the most intelligent of the field. She gets it when it comes to how our economy should be managed in order to fire up the engine of the middle class. She is pragmatic.....and thus would be able to handle foreign policy matters. She communicates exceptionally well......even when addressing complex issues. She oozes integrity.

Problem......she isn't going to run.

Excellent post.

Are you sure Warren won't run? Even if Hillary bows out? Are we reading her all wrong that she has made some effort to promote herself as a viable candidate?