Please reply this way:
1. Dem Nominee:
2. President:
3. Why:
Later, after the election we can return here and see who's prediction was most accurate. We are VERY early on so no worries if you are way off base. The winner (if there is a clear winner) will receive a trophy.
1. Dem Nominee: Biden 2. President: Trump 3. Why: I bought eight shares of Biden at 19¢ in January 2019; he is now trading at 25¢. It's the safe bet: he's been on the bumper stickers and in the White House, he's the conventional "electable" candidate for the anyone-but-Trump emergency. Warren is trading at 33¢ and a good bet, but I don't see what she brings for the average voter that the last candidate didn't have, other than not being a Clinton. Reelection is typical in recent elections. GHWB lost while "the economy was in recession"; Carter lost during "a worsening economy at home marked by high unemployment and inflation"; Ford was "saddled with a poor economy." Now everyone is calling for a recession, but without naming a timeline. If current trends continue another year, reelection seems likely.:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/one-term-us-presidents-3322257_final-b39caf5d3d0049eaa67de6c3b42382e6.jpg)
biden and trump for me as well, though i won't be putting my money where my mouth is this time around because of the 10 percent cost of doing business (or whatever) note: carter looked bad internationally and ford was never elected to begin with. hw was maybe just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I'm going with Biden/Biden. Trump's "surprise" victory in 2016 makes us forget how extremely poorly he actually did, almost giving a party a third consecutive term in the White House, something that is almost as rare as single-term presidents. Trump is no more popular now than he was in 2016, but this time there are actually serious candidates running for the Democratic nomination.
1. Dem Nominee: Elizabeth Warren 2. President: Elizabeth Warren 3. Why: Elizabeth Warren for President, and Bernie Sanders as VP. Warren is the only one with a coherent plan, the knowledge, and the experience, to get America back on track, and back in good graces with the rest of the goddamn world. She's vibrant, intelligent, respected internationally, and compassionate. There are a lot of problems we need to solve, and having a VP that was an effective legislator and champion of logic and reason - instead of just being a figurehead - would be an exquisite thing. Bernie is too old to be President, and will likely die his first term in office (either VP or Pres). Not to be shitty about it, but the dude is in his 80's, and the office ages people dramatically. This would also give Warren the ability to appoint a new VP if/when Bernie passes. (With approval by Congress. But Moscow Mitch will be dead by then, too. So Congress may get back to work, eventually.) So Bernie gets the VP nod, does his work on disempowering the corporate class and 1%, passes away, and then is replaced by someone like Andrew Yang, who can be tuned-up as VP to run for Warren's seat after 8 years.
I'd love to see a President Warren, if nothing else to show off my photo with her: Not Pictured The 10 pounds I've lost since this photo was taken.
Bernie Sanders is 77. Trump is 73. Elizabeth Warren is 70. Quoth Politico: You see where this is going. The U.S. doesn’t have a Politburo, but if you calculate the median age of the president, the speaker of the House, the majority leader of the Senate, and the three Democrats leading in the presidential polls for 2020, the median age is … uh … 77. That said, the democratic power structures seem to be aligning (as of September 2019) around Warren. Ben Hunt over at Epsilon Theory gets super-salty over the "narrative" but the fact of the matter is, we endorse stories not facts and the Elizabeth Warren story is one that establishment democrats are happy with and non-establishment democrats seem willing to live with. They're starting to bring up her conservative upbringing and conservative early political history which is always a "look you can vote for her too" move.Remember the Soviet Politburo? In the waning years of the Cold War, a frequent criticism of the USSR was that its ruling body was preposterously old and out of touch. Every May Day these geezers would show up on a Moscow reviewing stand, looking stuffed, and fix their rheumy gaze on a procession of jackbooted Red Army troops, missiles and tanks. For Americans, the sight was always good for a horselaugh. In 1982, when Leonid Brezhnev, the last of that generation to hold power for any significant length of time, went to his reward, the median age of a Politburo member was 71. No wonder the Evil Empire was crumbling!
I've endorsed Warren since 2004. That said, any of the democratic contenders out there are vastly superior to what we have now. I would say that any of the democratic contenders with the exception of Marianne Williamson are credible candidates for the job. As to who will be the nominee? I think she's got the momentum now but we haven't had a single caucus. Howard Dean was the obvious nominee up until the Washington power structure decided that they were more comfortable with Droopy Dog the windsailer. The shitstains at the DNC might very well decide that they're going to go to the mattresses giving Biden his "turn" despite declaring him an unqualified liar fuckin' 30 years ago.
@klienbl00@ What is your prediction. Realizing that this is just a gamble for a fake internet trophy :) What say ye?
I predict we'll be saddled with Biden as the nominee, some vaguely edgy but largely worthless white guy like Beto O'rourke as the VP and we'll get fuckin' Trump again because there is every indication that the DNC are a bunch of incompetent fuckwits that are far more interested in maintaining their place in the clubhouse than the republic that fuckin' delivers their checks.
As much as I'd love to see Warren in the White House, I'd have to agree with you here. The DNC will pull some stupid move and we'll end up with another four years of Trump.
I really think if Bernie was ten years younger, then he would have a stronger chance of getting the nomination. He gets people going and believing in him. However no one really wants a really old president in America. Sure Biden is out there as well not much younger than Bernie but I am not sure people really want him either.
I think the principle problem Bernie Sanders faces is he announced his candidacy (and his membership in the Democratic Party) on the premise that there was no fucking way Hillary Clinton could run unopposed. Now - you can feel any way you want about that. Personally I'm all about it. But he's also saying "dear Democratic power structure: up yours. Sincerely, Bernie Sanders." And that's why they did shit like fuck with the primary rules to keep him out. And over the past four years, the DNC has shown little-to-no contrition for this.
I've seen it argued that American democracy is the most cantankerous and stupid because it's effectively the first. Watching Americans make politics is like watching Mennonites make bread - there are faster, more efficient ways to do it but fuckin' hell God wants us to do it the slow way as we have done since sixteen diggity two.
There's a high probability that #Trump will not lose the mid-western states that he took, which include #Michigan, #Wisconsin, #Ohio and #Pennsylvania. This will more or less give him the victory. Is ANYONE on the left exciting you? I mean... yawnsville.
1. Dem Nominee: Andrew Yang 2. President: Andrew Yang 3. Why: His message of the "freedom dividend" will begin to resonate with independents and republicans that have been disenfranchised in this economy. Those that wore MAGA hats will be wearing MATH hats. He's an outsider, which is what people want. They don't trust politicians and they will see that he has more integrity than Trump. Plus, who doesn't want an extra $1k a month? I know I do. That's $2k a month in our household. That's a game changer and I'm not disenfranchised or economically challenged. I think he could win handedly.
Sure. He's also who disenfranchised liberals, libertarians and even republicans are starting to back. I think he could bridge a divide. I'm very interested to see if he shows up strong in the upcoming debate. I think it's a make or break moment for him.
I think if you've got a Robinhood account, you like Yang. I think if you've ever fought about UBI on Reddit, you like Yang. I think if you're smarter than your job by a lot, you like Yang. I also think that, much like you can't get a record contract without being on America's Got Talent these days, you can't get a serious policy position without going through some national-level pageantry. Yang isn't serious about being president, he's serious about getting a think tank funded so he can play the lobby game. Andrew Yang is Lyndon LaRouche for people who grew up with an email address.
He’s had great speaking points and time everywhere but the debate stage. His time on the CNN desk and even Ben Shapiro’s show are nice listens - surprised he even went on the latter, but that’s to your point. Looking forward to him sharing the stage with Buttigieg and Harris. I’d like to think those two have a better chance in this moment.
People wearing the MATH hats seem to be unaware that negative numbers exist. Where does your $2000 a month come from? The largest single claimed source is a value-added tax. This will raise the price of everything you, and the poor, now pay for. The first funding source mentioned is savings on current spending, because people will have to choose between their current benefits and $1000 a month; they can't get both. (Hence the people who now most rely on welfare programs won't get any benefit from UBI.) But where is the savings? If people keep their current benefits, there is no savings. If people switch from current benefits to UBI, there is only savings if their current benefits cost more than $1000 per month. But those people are more likely to keep their current benefits. This looks like half a trillion in wishful thinking. The critics demonstrate more interest in arithmetic than Yang does. But I think he has a good pitch; voters don't care about numbers or evidence.That's $2k a month in our household.
If I were an enthusiastic UBI advocate, I would know this experimental evidence forwards and backwards. Almost all of the advocates I’ve encountered, in contrast, have little interest in numbers or past experience. What excites them is the “One Ring to Rule Them All” logic of the idea: “We get rid of everything else, and replace it with an elegant, gift-wrapped UBI.” For a policy salesman, this evasive approach makes sense: Slogans sell; numbers and history don’t. For a policy analyst, however, this evasive approach is negligence itself.
Yang has an interesting idea with the freedom dividend. However I am not sure he will gain enough momentum to be the nominee. I also think if you're in for someone like Sanders or Warren, you aren't going to change your mind for Yang. Warren or Sanders have better shots of getting the nomination, why throw your support towards someone that is barely scratching the surface at the moment.