Beto O'Rourke seen as a top contender in 2020: poll

Dec 2015
10,463
6,239
In Your Heart!
#1
Beto O'Rourke seen as a top contender in 2020: poll
By Lisa Hagen

"Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) is considered one of the top Democratic contenders for the White House in 2020 even among more well-known potential hopefuls, according to a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill."
"When Clinton is factored into the poll, she bumps O’Rourke down to fourth place, though his support grows from 7 percent to 9 percent."
"During his Senate campaign, O’Rourke had firmly said he wouldn’t mount a presidential run in 2020. But last week, he told reporters that he’s no longer ruling it out."









#######################################################################
Beto is now being seen as a good contender for the presidency. He is young, smart, alert, savvy, and experienced in politics. If he does decide to run he may give some of the older contenders a real run for their money. He would be a great Democratic candidate and would be sure to shake-up politics in Washington, D.C. in a way that truly helps the American people something that is sorely needed. Go Beto!
 
Sep 2017
3,954
4,878
Massachusetts
#3
Beto O'Rourke seen as a top contender in 2020: poll
By Lisa Hagen














#######################################################################
Beto is now being seen as a good contender for the presidency. He is young, smart, alert, savvy, and experienced in politics. If he does decide to run he may give some of the older contenders a real run for their money. He would be a great Democratic candidate and would be sure to shake-up politics in Washington, D.C. in a way that truly helps the American people something that is sorely needed. Go Beto!
I'm not sold on the guy, but he does have one mark in his favor over another liberal darling, Sanders. Bernie Sanders has never really faced the full force of the Republican smear machine. Generally speaking his campaigns have been in a very liberal state, where the Republicans couldn't be bothered to contest the race fiercely, because they knew they'd lose. In his one national campaign, the Republicans wanted him to do as well as possible, since they weren't worried about him winning, but wanted him to stick around as long as possible, to drain Clinton's coffers, and to build a wedge between Clinton and the left that would persist into the general election. So, we can't be sure how Sanders will weather the full force of that smear machine. Does he have skeletons in his closet the conservatives haven't bothered to turn up yet (or are keeping in reserve until they actually want to hurt him)? Will he implode under conservative pressure? There's no knowing, yet. He may do wonderfully in that spotlight, or he might be a hothouse flower that only flourishes under certain conditions. O'Rourke, by comparison, came close enough to taking down one of the top Republicans in a conservative state that we can be pretty confident the Republicans fired every shot they could scrounge up against the guy. If he had skeletons, we'd expect them to have been publicized by now. And if he was going to wilt under adverse conditions, we'd expect him to have done so.
 
Dec 2015
10,463
6,239
In Your Heart!
#4
I'm not sold on the guy, but he does have one mark in his favor over another liberal darling, Sanders. Bernie Sanders has never really faced the full force of the Republican smear machine. Generally speaking his campaigns have been in a very liberal state, where the Republicans couldn't be bothered to contest the race fiercely, because they knew they'd lose. In his one national campaign, the Republicans wanted him to do as well as possible, since they weren't worried about him winning, but wanted him to stick around as long as possible, to drain Clinton's coffers, and to build a wedge between Clinton and the left that would persist into the general election. So, we can't be sure how Sanders will weather the full force of that smear machine. Does he have skeletons in his closet the conservatives haven't bothered to turn up yet (or are keeping in reserve until they actually want to hurt him)? Will he implode under conservative pressure? There's no knowing, yet. He may do wonderfully in that spotlight, or he might be a hothouse flower that only flourishes under certain conditions. O'Rourke, by comparison, came close enough to taking down one of the top Republicans in a conservative state that we can be pretty confident the Republicans fired every shot they could scrounge up against the guy. If he had skeletons, we'd expect them to have been publicized by now. And if he was going to wilt under adverse conditions, we'd expect him to have done so.
In a nutshell about Sanders...he should be rejected by the Democratic Party should he choose to run again as a Democrat instead of as the Independent that he in fact is. Bernie has never indicated that he has officially switched over to become a full-fledged Democrat nor has he been known to be registered as one in order for the Democratic Party to consider him a viable candidate. Under the circumstances Democrats should not allow him to run in their party with his being from another one until he makes the official switch. Nothing less should be accepted.
 
Apr 2012
593
638
#5
Why not Beto. Presidential elections have become popularity contests since policy issues don't seem to matter to most voters.

As for Bernie; he's more of a Democrat than Hillary. Much more than Schumer. The anti progressive propaganda is working well.
 
Feb 2007
22,883
15,559
Colorado
#6
Why not Beto. Presidential elections have become popularity contests since policy issues don't seem to matter to most voters.

As for Bernie; he's more of a Democrat than Hillary. Much more than Schumer. The anti progressive propaganda is working well.
Hilary is why not. I'm not bringing her up to bash on her. She is an example to the DNC.

If Beto loses, that's a bigger bet. Will the DNC hedge or go for it? I don't think they will in the end.
 
Likes: Southern Dad
Sep 2017
3,954
4,878
Massachusetts
#7
In a nutshell about Sanders...he should be rejected by the Democratic Party should he choose to run again as a Democrat instead of as the Independent that he in fact is. Bernie has never indicated that he has officially switched over to become a full-fledged Democrat nor has he been known to be registered as one in order for the Democratic Party to consider him a viable candidate. Under the circumstances Democrats should not allow him to run in their party with his being from another one until he makes the official switch. Nothing less should be accepted.
I don't blame Democrats who had a problem with Sanders because he refused to align as a Democrat. There's a certain arrogance in spending half your energy, during your career, attacking the Democratic Party, and then asking the Democrats to support your presidential ambitions. But, in the end, what I care about is beating Trump. If Sanders provides the best hope of that, I'll support him enthusiastically, without requiring that he become a "full-fledged" Democrat. He seems like a good man, with decent policy ideas, and more to the point he'd be vastly better than Trump.
 
Likes: NightSwimmer
Jul 2013
46,817
49,137
Nashville, TN
#8
I don't blame Democrats who had a problem with Sanders because he refused to align as a Democrat. There's a certain arrogance in spending half your energy, during your career, attacking the Democratic Party, and then asking the Democrats to support your presidential ambitions. But, in the end, what I care about is beating Trump. If Sanders provides the best hope of that, I'll support him enthusiastically, without requiring that he become a "full-fledged" Democrat. He seems like a good man, with decent policy ideas, and more to the point he'd be vastly better than Trump.
Almost anybody would be vastly better than Trump
 
Sep 2017
3,954
4,878
Massachusetts
#9
The knock on O'Rourke is that his claim to fame is having run a losing campaign. I mean, before he ran against Cruz, how many people outside of his district had ever even heard of him? Some people are going to be reluctant to choose as a Democratic champion a guy who has never shown he can beat a Republican in a competitive race.... O'Rourke's House victory was in a heavily Latino district that hasn't gone for a Republican since the mid-1960s. It's one of those districts where whoever wins the Democratic primary is almost automatically peniciled in as the winner of the general election.

In prior cycles, I'd also take a swipe at him for lack of experience, since four years in the lower house isn't exactly a lot of seasoning for the challenges of being leader of the free world. However, at this point, I'm willing to toss that qualifier right out the window, since the importance of beating Trump is so great that I'd gladly back someone who'd never served a day in public office if he had the best shot of winning.

As for Bernie; he's more of a Democrat than Hillary. Much more than Schumer.
I disagree. I like Sanders. I voted for him in the primary. But he isn't a Democrat and Clinton is. She spent decades working on behalf of Democratic party mates, back when Sanders was bashing them.

I suppose what you mean is that Sanders better reflects the stated values of the Democratic Party, in that he is more genuinely progressive. I suppose that's true. But Clinton isn't exactly a "DINO". One way to look at it is in terms of Voteview's DW-Nominate scores of various politicians, which are a mathematical way to rank politicians from left to right based on how they vote relative to others. Here are Clinton's rankings:

ENATE_SORT103 Rank Ordering
(5th-most-liberal senator)
ENATE_SORT104 Rank Ordering
(4th-most-liberal senator)
ENATE_SORT105 Rank Ordering
(4th-most-liberal senator)
ENATE_SORT106 Rank Ordering
(4th-most-liberal senator)
ENATE_SORT107 Rank Ordering
(13th-most-liberal senator)
ENATE_SORT108 Rank Ordering
(13th-most-liberal senator)
ENATE_SORT109 Rank Ordering
(13th-most-liberal senator)
ENATE_SORT110 Rank Ordering
(13th-most-liberal senator)

In other words, she started out as one of the most liberal senators, and then drifted a bit rightward, but still remained among the most liberal third of the Democratic Party. It's popular among progressives to bash her, because anything short of absolute liberal purity is seen as apostasy, and because she screwed up badly on Iraq, but the fact is, she's not only a solid Democrat, but very clearly on the liberal end of the party's spectrum.

Of course, Sanders is even more liberal. Using the same measures, he's been the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most liberal senator in each senate he's been a part of. So, even at his most conservative, he's slightly more liberal than Clinton at her most liberal. But the fact she's not as progressive as him shouldn't be seen as meaning she's not progressive.
 

Similar Discussions