re: Democrats: Give Me Your Assessment of The Democrat Presidential Candidates As of Today

You sound confident with this field

it's TBD, but if you really can't see than on the whole Harris is a competent campaigner who also doesn't come off like a complete robot then idk what to tell you because you're either not paying attention or you're too emotionally involved to be honest.

Yeah Tulsi on paper is probably the best but she has the personality of a bottle of ambien.

The only way Harris is a "competent campaigner is if she bends over and gives everyone a turn...like she did to become DA.

Yeah I mean again y'all are going to shite on whoever opposes your dear leader so not expecting objective or honest analysis from 90% of the regular posters here.

quote:

---

I’m not overly impressed with anyone at this point, but it’s sort of ridiculous when you’re packed on stage with 9 other people and that’s still only half the field. 

To this point Harris looks like the best combination of campaigner who is also relatable and won’t be easily bullied by Trump. But again it’s way early, I want to see it get down to 5 or 6.

---

I appreciate your input. I don't understand how you can say Harris is relatable, though.

I mean, forget politics. Obviously, you love her political mindset and I hate it. But just as a human being, she comes across as a horrible person to me. Tulsi is as liberal as it gets on most issues, but I will always tip my cap to Gabbard for the way she both exposed and destroyed Harris.

I wouldn't have thought this 6 months ago, but barring the entrance of a "star" like Michelle Obama I think Liz Warren is going to get the nomination. Biden wasn't a good candidate 30 years ago, but he's running on fumes. His mental capacity seems shaky to me.

quote:

---

To this point Harris looks like the best combination of campaigner who is also relatable and won’t be easily bullied by Trump.

---

I didn't get that impression from what I saw of the last debate. After Tulsi went after her, she looked to be on the verge of tears. Just my 2 cents.

Kamala Harris literally fricked the mayor of San Francisco for the DA position. That is public record. She's also on record for LYING about Ferguson and Michael Brown just last week.

If you can't acknowledge this, any calls for "objectivity" on your part are a joke.

quote:

---

I didn't get that impression from what I saw of the last debate. After Tulsi went after her, she looked to be on the verge of tears. Just my 2 cents.

---

Maybe you're right, we'll see. Again I don't think this stuff is super meaningful considering everyone has like 10 seconds to unpack complicated policy proposals. Once we get the top 5 or 6 all on 1 stage we'll start to see who has it and who doesn't.

Personally I like Warren the best but, fair or unfair, I just think she looks and sounds too much like HRC & subconsciously for casual voters it will feel too much like 2016 part 2.

They are idiots. Every. Single. One.

As of right now, I think Warren is the eventual winner. She's put a lot of resources on the ground to have a slow steady build. She's got a good story. Grew up not having a ton of money, was a teacher to being a lawyer to teaching at Harvard to eventually being in the senate. Speaks well to the economic anxiety out there, framing it as "the bosses are fricking you" and she's going to lead the charge fighting back.

Presents a more difficult challenge to Trump than most will admit. He won, in large part, speaking to the job losses in the Midwest. She's going to do the same, but with a more traditional framing of left wing populism in the language of organized labor they are familiar with. Hold the other blue states, swing back MI, WI, and PA. She is farther left of the mainstream, which is certainly a vulnerability. As well as the DNA test disaster.

In terms of the primary, she's got to have a strong start and probably have a good showing in SC to have it come together. She gets that and she'll do well Super Tuesday. Short term, the knives are about to come out from the Bernie supporters, seeing her take the lead over Bernie as the progressive standard barer.

Looking at Bernie, he's got a high floor but a low ceiling. Everyone knows him and are either fans or very not fans. His internet fan following are obnoxious to put it mildly and has done a lot to alienate support from other candidates. We all know what his policy positions are about.

He's got to win the nomination outright. Brokered convention won't go well considering party brass still doesn't like him. If he can win Iowa, NH, and then do well in SC and it looks like Warren is faltering, he's got a shot to consolidate her voters and build in on Biden weakness.

He'll have a harder time beating Trump. The olds of the Dem party aren't going to be super excited. He'll probably scare away the suburban vote the Dems have been building on. Still, he can do well in the Midwest with his brand of populism.

Biden is leading the polls on the idea he is the safe choice to beat Trump. He's got mainstream positions for the Democratic Party. Everybody knows him, and he's tying his campaign to the better days of when Obama was in office. His support is mostly old people, and especially older black people.

He's got real weaknesses though. He's great at putting his foot in his mouth. Which looks really bad considering his age. He's not campaigning nearly as much as the others. His support isn't exactly enthusiastic among the primary contenders. His age is showing, and I think this makes it hard for him to end up winning the primary. All the talk of electability goes out the window when he starts losing primaries. He's banking on dominating the south, getting union support in the Midwest, and riding that strength to victory elsewhere. He's got the most obvious path to the nomination, but I still don't think he gets it.

Against Trump, he'll struggle. His age is showing. He'll get baited into stupid fights. It's still a midwest strategy for him, but I'm not sure he's got enough of a contrast or speaks a populist enough message to swing WI and PA back.

Harris. She's got the demographics the Dems are craving. She's setting herself up as the best prosecutor to make the case against Trump. That's a double edged sword though, since it also reminds everyone she's a cop. I'm not really sure the unifying theory of her campaign. She seems to want to talk about the "3 am issues", making a universal message of addressing the issues that keep people up at night. Yet, she's also making an overt case against Trump that distracts from that. She seems to cautious overall, trying to thread the political needle instead of just being who she is. Biden, Warren, and Bernie all run as they are and I think her not really doing that is holding her back.

Her path to the nomination requires a strong showing in the south and winning big out west. It's doable but she really needs Biden to burn out early. Have him still viable by Super Tuesday and I'm not sure she can get it done.

Against Trump, I think she'd do very well in a debate setting but she's got to seem more genuine and make a positive case for herself to really have a chance. She doesn't have the strength of the first three for winning the midwest IMO.

It's those four with a real chance to win this thing.

Booker could build some momentum and become a player. Buttigieg is probably the smartest person in the race, but struggles with his age and the fact he seems like a McKinsey alum making a management pitch instead of being from the heart.

The rest are toast, imo. Glad Yang is in the race for his perspective on the economy of the future. Tulsi for being as anti-war as possible. Beto doesn't have an obvious lane and just doesn't seem to really want to be running.

That's about where it stands from my perspective. I'm not looking to argue how the general will actually go, just stating the case the candidates seem to be making for their potential showdown with Trump.