Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 6146 times)

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
2020 POTUS Candidates
« on: January 22, 2019, 02:37:42 PM »
So, people are starting to express formal interest in running for president. Much like Christmas, it seems like just as one ends, the advertising and planning for the next one begins. So far, the list is:

GOP:
Trump (declared on Jan 20, 2017)

Democrats:
Elizabeth Warren - Senator from Mass.
Richard Ojeda - State senator from WV
Kamala Harris - Senator from CA
Kirsten Gillibrand - Senator from NY
Tulsi Gabbard - Congresswoman from Hawaii
Julian Castro - Former secretary of HUD, and mayor of San Antonio
John Delaney - former congressman from MD

At a first glance, the democratic field looks very diverse, which raises a lot of interesting electability vs. background issues. It is still very early and a lot of changes will happen over the next couple of years. It is still uncertain if potential candidates like Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, and Corey Booker will jump in. I suspect that the outcomes of the Mueller (and related) investigations may influence what happens in the GOP. It would be interesting if there was an insurgent primary challenge.


the_fixer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2019, 11:14:19 PM »
I suspect Hickenlooper will jump in as well. I really like him and hope he makes a run for it.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


Financial.Velociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Houston TX
  • Devour your prey raptors!
    • Financial Velociraptor
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2019, 03:34:51 PM »
I hadn't heard about Castro.  Interesting dynamic there.  Trumpy clearly can't afford to lose TX so he'd at least have to defend there.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2019, 03:58:43 PM »
I am fascinated to watch the whole thing.

I doubt there will be a serious primary challenger to Trump on the Republican side.

I am curious to see how the overall field develops.  Do early entrants have an advantage or disadvantage?  What happens to the people who are currently on the fence as the field gets more crowded?  How does the media handle a large field?  I remember how the Republican debates limited how many candidates made it to the main debate stage when there were 17 of them.

How will the field winnow?  I expect the usual early exits and that it will narrow to a final two at some point, but when, and what will be the distinguishing characteristics of those last two?

I am particularly interested to see what kind of candidate will win on the Democrat side.  More progressive or more moderate?  Old or young?  Experienced or less so?  For lack of better words, more contentious towards Trump or more civil?

Finally, will anyone on either side end up mounting a significant third party run?  I doubt this; I think whichever major party views a third party run as a threat will co-opt or buy out or threaten the third party candidate in some fashion.  It is too obvious of a risk.

SuperNintendo Chalmers

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2019, 06:51:25 AM »
I suspect Hickenlooper will jump in as well. I really like him and hope he makes a run for it.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Me too.  I think he would (or at least try to) do a lot to bring sides together and find common ground.  Unfortunately, he is probably not "sensational" or headline-grabbing enough to go far in a field crowded with big names. 

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2019, 07:44:31 AM »
Regardless of the quality of candidates, it's impossible for it not to look ridiculous when you have a dozen candidates doing a debate. It just looks like a circus, people are desperate to squeeze in a one-liner or some talking points, and there will always be people talking over each other.

I think the question of how to limit numbers will be really interesting. I really hope/think Biden, Bernie, and Hillary will all be watching from the sidelines, so I just can't see a clear favorite, meaning I guess the ones who have declared, even the super long shots, are thinking, "Hey I have as good of a shot as anyone else!"

BUT the mere optics of a shit ton of Dem candidates in debates would make it all look silly, and Trump will have a field day making fun of them.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2019, 07:46:59 AM by Nick_Miller »

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7808
  • Location: Washington DC
  • Cake or Death?
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2019, 08:06:44 AM »
BUT the mere optics of a shit ton of Dem candidates in debates would make it all look silly, and Trump will have a field day making fun of them.

The high volume of candidates reflects a huge interest in unseating Trump. In all the negative comparisons to silly crowded Republican debates in 16, is everyone forgetting that the person who came out of that primary WON?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3614
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2019, 08:07:11 AM »
Regardless of the quality of candidates, it's impossible for it not to look ridiculous when you have a dozen candidates doing a debate. It just looks like a circus, people are desperate to squeeze in a one-liner or some talking points, and there will always be people talking over each other.

I think the question of how to limit numbers will be really interesting. I really hope/think Biden, Bernie, and Hillary will all be watching from the sidelines, so I just can't see a clear favorite, meaning I guess the ones who have declared, even the super long shots, are thinking, "Hey I have as good of a shot as anyone else!"

BUT the mere optics of a shit ton of Dem candidates in debates would make it all look silly, and Trump will have a field day making fun of them.

Yeah -- which is ridiculous, of course, since there were 17 Republican candidates last time around. But hey, logic has no place here, and Americans have short memories.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2019, 08:44:37 AM »
Regardless of the quality of candidates, it's impossible for it not to look ridiculous when you have a dozen candidates doing a debate. It just looks like a circus, people are desperate to squeeze in a one-liner or some talking points, and there will always be people talking over each other.

I think the question of how to limit numbers will be really interesting. I really hope/think Biden, Bernie, and Hillary will all be watching from the sidelines, so I just can't see a clear favorite, meaning I guess the ones who have declared, even the super long shots, are thinking, "Hey I have as good of a shot as anyone else!"

BUT the mere optics of a shit ton of Dem candidates in debates would make it all look silly, and Trump will have a field day making fun of them.

Yeah -- which is ridiculous, of course, since there were 17 Republican candidates last time around. But hey, logic has no place here, and Americans have short memories.

To be clear, I'll be voting for whoever wins the Dem primary; I was just expressing my opinion on what I fear will happen. And although I am a progressive, I don't have a purity test; I just want someone who can/will beat Trump (which really should be ANYone, but I thought HRC would beat Trump, so who knows).
« Last Edit: January 24, 2019, 08:46:14 AM by Nick_Miller »

Blueberries

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2019, 08:47:30 AM »
I want Kasich for GOP. 

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2019, 09:32:21 AM »
I want Kasich for GOP.

If Kasich primaries Trump, I'll be voting in the GOP primaries rather than the Democratic primaries. No way he wins the party's nomination, but I'd love to show some support to a rational Republican. I don't really care who comes out of the Democratic primary. I'll be voting for whoever it is.

Ok, that's not entirely true. I definitely have preferences as to whom I'd like to see win the Democratic nomination, but I'm not going to get all pissy and sit out the general election like some of Bernie's supporters did if my preferred candidate doesn't secure the nomination. I definitely hope Bernie and Hillary sit this one out. I wouldn't mind if Biden runs.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2019, 09:40:02 AM »
I'm a registered Republican who voted for Kasich in the NC primary.

I cannot see how the last two years would mean Kasich will do any better in a 2020 primary than he did in that one. I would only change my party registration if there is no meaningful NC primary in 2020, so that I get a chance to weigh in on having a good, centrist Democratic challenger to Trump.

I would like a candidate with a record of public service (no Ben Carson or Fiorina, please). From that record, it's possible to discern positions on issues, and I have many where I break with Trump.

Blueberries

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2019, 10:07:18 AM »
I'm a registered Republican who voted for Kasich in the NC primary.

I cannot see how the last two years would mean Kasich will do any better in a 2020 primary than he did in that one. I would only change my party registration if there is no meaningful NC primary in 2020, so that I get a chance to weigh in on having a good, centrist Democratic challenger to Trump.

I would like a candidate with a record of public service (no Ben Carson or Fiorina, please). From that record, it's possible to discern positions on issues, and I have many where I break with Trump.

My entire family is Republican and I was surprised none of them considered Kasich.  I kept hearing things like "he's boring", "he won't win" and it infuriated me because, no, he won't win if people don't vote for him.  I view 2020 differently as Trump has already been given a chance.  I think there are plenty of people who are tired of Trump and whilst I recognize plenty are not, I do think Kasich would have a greater chance now that we've actually experienced Trump.  I think the next 1.5+ years will give us some direction and either way, if we have a Republican president, I'm hopeful it will be someone like Kasich.

As a side note, every state should have open primaries. 

I want Kasich for GOP.

If Kasich primaries Trump, I'll be voting in the GOP primaries rather than the Democratic primaries. No way he wins the party's nomination, but I'd love to show some support to a rational Republican. I don't really care who comes out of the Democratic primary. I'll be voting for whoever it is.

Ok, that's not entirely true. I definitely have preferences as to whom I'd like to see win the Democratic nomination, but I'm not going to get all pissy and sit out the general election like some of Bernie's supporters did if my preferred candidate doesn't secure the nomination. I definitely hope Bernie and Hillary sit this one out. I wouldn't mind if Biden runs.

Exactly how I feel.  I know it wouldn't have mattered, but I wish I had voted for him in the last primary.  I will this time.  Hindsight and all that.

My only concern with Biden is age, just from a practical perspective.  But, I voted for Bernie in the primary so I'd vote for Biden in the general election if he is the nominee. 

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2019, 10:21:03 AM »
The other thing I am interested to watch is what Secretary Clinton does and what her impact on the race is.  Will she endorse someone?  Will she run?  Will she campaign for the Democrat nominee?  Would she be considered as a Democrat VP nominee?

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2019, 01:38:48 PM »
Oh, gosh, can you imagine if Clinton runs again?

And--just for total bizarro--can you imagine what Republicans will do if she runs again, flips Florida and Michigan, and unseats Trump? Heads will explode!

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2019, 01:48:34 PM »
Oh, gosh, can you imagine if Clinton runs again?

And--just for total bizarro--can you imagine what Republicans will do if she runs again, flips Florida and Michigan, and unseats Trump? Heads will explode!

My armchair analysis is that she is being advised in strong terms not to run again.  I think both parties tend to shy away from candidates who have lost before, either in the primary or the general, and she has obviously lost in both.  That may have been part of Biden's calculus in 2016 when he was considering running - he may have decided it was better to wait for 2020.

If she runs again and got the nomination, I think it would be fascinating to see how the general election would play out.  Both parties would obviously change things.  I've no idea what the result would be.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2019, 02:28:49 PM »
Oh, gosh, can you imagine if Clinton runs again?

And--just for total bizarro--can you imagine what Republicans will do if she runs again, flips Florida and Michigan, and unseats Trump? Heads will explode!

My armchair analysis is that she is being advised in strong terms not to run again.  I think both parties tend to shy away from candidates who have lost before, either in the primary or the general, and she has obviously lost in both.  That may have been part of Biden's calculus in 2016 when he was considering running - he may have decided it was better to wait for 2020.

If she runs again and got the nomination, I think it would be fascinating to see how the general election would play out.  Both parties would obviously change things.  I've no idea what the result would be.

I can't imagine a scenario in which Hillary gets the 2020 nomination, even if she does run. It ain't happening.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2019, 02:43:38 PM »
Any guesses on the maximum size of the Democrat field?  I've seen news stories with nearly 30 candidates' pictures shown.  I don't think it will get that big, since I accept the analysis that there are "swimlanes" such that candidates in any given swimlane effectively discourages additional entries into that same lane.  At the very least the fundraising and endorsement pool for any given swimlane is finite.

The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, entered the race for the Democrat nomination yesterday.  It seems he is considered a long shot.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2019, 03:06:31 PM »
I think the experience of the GOP primaries in 2016, and other races, make a strong case for ranked voting. This allows voters to show variable support in a big field, and reduces the vote splitting/dilution issues among similar candidates .

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3924
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2019, 06:37:32 AM »
I see that Howard Schultz is thinking of running.

Apart from the political issues, one thing I don't understand is where an independent candidate is going to find the 4,000 people needed for a full complement of Presidential appointees.  I mean, Trump (who is basically blackballed by a large part of the Republican party, to the extent that he is effectively an independent under cover of a Republican candidate) has been unable to fill many of those positions.

Of course, what this does point up is the stupidity of having so many positions appointed by the President.  Any truly reforming President would limit the number of Presidential appointments to the Cabinet plus an appropriate number of deputies for each member of the Cabinet.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
  • Age: 33
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2019, 09:40:45 AM »
I'm a registered Republican who voted for Kasich in the NC primary.

I would only change my party registration if there is no meaningful NC primary in 2020, so that I get a chance to weigh in on having a good, centrist Democratic challenger to Trump.

Fun fact, in NC both parties have open primaries. So if you change your registration to "unaffiliated" you can choose which primary you want to vote in each election. The only reason to have a party affiliation in NC is if you're actually wanting to run for office or trying to be an Elector or some other more hands-on role. All mere Voters should just be unaffiliated.

Really I wish that's how everyone everywhere was. Less identifying as being part of "team X" and more voting for the best candidate on either side would be good for the country.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
  • Age: 33
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2019, 09:49:21 AM »
Apart from the political issues, one thing I don't understand is where an independent candidate is going to find the 4,000 people needed for a full complement of Presidential appointees.  I mean, Trump (who is basically blackballed by a large part of the Republican party, to the extent that he is effectively an independent under cover of a Republican candidate) has been unable to fill many of those positions.

Trump is not having a hard time finding people because he's "not really a Republican", Trump is having a hard time finding people because he is Trump. A reasonable 3rd party president could easily find enough appointees by pulling from both the Republican and Democratic pools where the individuals aligned with their views.

Bateaux

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
  • Location: Port Vincent
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2019, 01:50:34 PM »
I want Kasich for GOP.

If Kasich runs GOP, I'll probably change my registration back to Republican and support him in the primary.   Maybe not the general election.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2019, 02:59:39 PM »
I'm rooting for Warren or Sanders but regardless of who wins the nomination I can't imagine any Democratic nominee whom I wouldn't vote for in the general election in 2020.

tralfamadorian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2019, 04:16:24 PM »
Personally hoping for Beto or Biden, though I am concerned that the latter is too old.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2019, 04:56:45 PM »
Democrats:
Elizabeth Warren - Senator from Mass.
Richard Ojeda - State senator from WV
Kamala Harris - Senator from CA
Kirsten Gillibrand - Senator from NY
Tulsi Gabbard - Congresswoman from Hawaii
Julian Castro - Former secretary of HUD, and mayor of San Antonio
John Delaney - former congressman from MD
Ojeda is out.

I'd take anyone on that list besides who we have now. Everyone who is throwing their hat in the ring is pretty ok. Three not on the list I'd vote for are Bernie, Beto and Klobuchar. And I really like Warren and Castro too if not solely for their policy ideas, but because either one would make the heads of Trump's base explode.

If Biden throws in... he's just ok and I'd vote for him, but I think I'd rather have a female candidate this time around.

I really want a candidate who has worked and served in government so prospects such as Howard Schultz and any other CEO, billionaire or celebrity candidate are out for me.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3614
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2019, 05:34:48 PM »
Democrats:
Elizabeth Warren - Senator from Mass.
Richard Ojeda - State senator from WV
Kamala Harris - Senator from CA
Kirsten Gillibrand - Senator from NY
Tulsi Gabbard - Congresswoman from Hawaii
Julian Castro - Former secretary of HUD, and mayor of San Antonio
John Delaney - former congressman from MD
Ojeda is out.

I'd take anyone on that list besides who we have now. Everyone who is throwing their hat in the ring is pretty ok. Three not on the list I'd vote for are Bernie, Beto and Klobuchar. And I really like Warren and Castro too if not solely for their policy ideas, but because either one would make the heads of Trump's base explode.

If Biden throws in... he's just ok and I'd vote for him, but I think I'd rather have a female candidate this time around.

I really want a candidate who has worked and served in government so prospects such as Howard Schultz and any other CEO, billionaire or celebrity candidate are out for me.

I will say, I would enjoy debates between Biden and Trump. Trump would shrivel up like a micropenis.

Telecaster

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2019, 07:54:30 PM »
I see that Howard Schultz is thinking of running.


Schultz has been drinking his own Kool-Aid.  Schultz points out correctly that something like 40% of voters self-identify as independent.   So, his thinking goes, he simply peels off that 40%, the R's and D's split 30/30% each, and he cruises to easy victory.  That's because Schultz doesn't know what he's doing.   Yes, lots of people like to think of themselves as independent, but in fact the vast majority of independents vote consistently with one party or the other.   There is a small number of voters who are persuadable, but there is no reason to think Schultz has any particular appeal to those voters.   

Schultz will probably get a couple percent at most, mostly Democratic leaning voters, and help Trump win re-election.   






libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2019, 10:57:00 PM »
Democrats:
Elizabeth Warren - Senator from Mass.
Richard Ojeda - State senator from WV
Kamala Harris - Senator from CA
Kirsten Gillibrand - Senator from NY
Tulsi Gabbard - Congresswoman from Hawaii
Julian Castro - Former secretary of HUD, and mayor of San Antonio
John Delaney - former congressman from MD
Ojeda is out.

I'd take anyone on that list besides who we have now. Everyone who is throwing their hat in the ring is pretty ok. Three not on the list I'd vote for are Bernie, Beto and Klobuchar. And I really like Warren and Castro too if not solely for their policy ideas, but because either one would make the heads of Trump's base explode.

Castro, the former mayor here in San Antonio, is a lackluster choice.  I never saw him take any stance that wasn't straight out of the party platform- he's not exactly bold or an original thinker.  However, he curried favor with powerful operators in the Democratic Party- especially the Clintons, which will probably help him in the primaries.

Though a bland, run of the mill Dem like Castro would give them a better shot at winning than an extremist like Warren or Sanders.  But there certainly have to be moderate Dems who are a little more charismatic than Castro?

One thought I had when Castro announced:  The guy is TINY.  He had an office in the same building I used to work in, and standing next to him on the elevator, I'd guess he's maybe 5'7", give or take?  And he's not a particularly strong or energetic speaker.  I could see Trump towering over him and bullying him in a debate.  Like he did with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and others, but worse.  Trump is probably already working up demeaning "Little Julian" cracks.

I'd love to see the Dems nominate Tulsi Gabbard.  I don't think Trump would know how to handle her.  She's something of an anti-Hillary.  She doesn't have a ton of baggage; she's young, energetic, a veteran, and charismatic; she doesn't always toe the party line; she's shown that she's tough and willing to stand up for what she believes in.  I don't think Trump will succeed in trying to bully her. 


Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Location: NC
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2019, 11:51:53 PM »
Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few that I would not want to see win the nomination.  She supported Bashar-Assad and has very public anti-Muslim and anti-gay views.  She also appeared regularly on Fox News in 2014 and after to state that the problem with terrorism is that Obama didn't call it radical Islamic terrorism. I might be oversimplifying her positions, but I'm always suspicious of "progressives" that have vocal support from the likes of Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon and other far right figures. 

Jim Fiction

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2019, 08:04:16 AM »
Though his age scares me a bit, I am hoping that Bernie declares. He's the best choice by a mile.

Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2019, 10:30:06 AM »
I see that Howard Schultz is thinking of running.


Schultz has been drinking his own Kool-Aid.  Schultz points out correctly that something like 40% of voters self-identify as independent.   So, his thinking goes, he simply peels off that 40%, the R's and D's split 30/30% each, and he cruises to easy victory.  That's because Schultz doesn't know what he's doing.   Yes, lots of people like to think of themselves as independent, but in fact the vast majority of independents vote consistently with one party or the other.   There is a small number of voters who are persuadable, but there is no reason to think Schultz has any particular appeal to those voters.   

Schultz will probably get a couple percent at most, mostly Democratic leaning voters, and help Trump win re-election.

Schultz is reminding the Democratic Party that Sanders and Warren are not particularly attractive to many of the economically conservative moderates who could be inclined to vote for a "sensible" Democrat over Trump.

Democrats also need to remember that they may or may not actually be facing Trump by the time November 2020 rolls around. Whoever they pick needs to match up well against Trump, and also against a more typical Republican who might step in late in the process should Trump become unfeasible. I think there's a real chance Democrats go too far to the left with a candidate (and then damage them further in a contentious primary), only to see Trump withdraw late and Republicans stand up a "sensible" option palatable to enough of the Trump base and the conservative moderates to take the election.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 10:32:11 AM by Samuel »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3614
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2019, 10:37:41 AM »
I see that Howard Schultz is thinking of running.


Schultz has been drinking his own Kool-Aid.  Schultz points out correctly that something like 40% of voters self-identify as independent.   So, his thinking goes, he simply peels off that 40%, the R's and D's split 30/30% each, and he cruises to easy victory.  That's because Schultz doesn't know what he's doing.   Yes, lots of people like to think of themselves as independent, but in fact the vast majority of independents vote consistently with one party or the other.   There is a small number of voters who are persuadable, but there is no reason to think Schultz has any particular appeal to those voters.   

Schultz will probably get a couple percent at most, mostly Democratic leaning voters, and help Trump win re-election.

Schultz is reminding the Democratic Party that Sanders and Warren are not particularly attractive to many of the economically conservative moderates who could be inclined to vote for a "sensible" Democrat over Trump.

Democrats also need to remember that they may or may not actually be facing Trump by the time November 2020 rolls around. Whoever they pick needs to match up well against Trump, and also against a more typical Republican who might step in late in the process should Trump become unfeasible. I think there's a real chance Democrats go too far to the left with a candidate (and then damage them further in a contentious primary), only to see Trump withdraw late and Republicans stand up a "sensible" option palatable to enough of the Trump base and the conservative moderates to take the election.

I would really, really like to believe that Democrats as a whole (as well as anti-Trump moderates) are smart enough by now to see that the fantasy that electing a billionaire CEO with no government experience IS A STUPID FANTASY THAT IS BEING FREAKING PROVEN RIGHT NOW TO BE DUMB AS HELL.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2019, 10:51:34 AM »
I would really, really like to believe that Democrats as a whole (as well as anti-Trump moderates) are smart enough by now to see that the fantasy that electing a billionaire CEO with no government experience IS A STUPID FANTASY THAT IS BEING FREAKING PROVEN RIGHT NOW TO BE DUMB AS HELL.

Eh, I'm a Democrat. I think Howard Schultz would be a much better president than Donald Trump. Just because Trump is a corrupt buffoon who happens to be a billionaire doesn't mean all billionaires are corrupt buffoons. That said, I seriously do not want Schultz to run, and I wouldn't vote for him if he did. I haven't heard him offer any unique ideas for solving the problems our country faces.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3614
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2019, 11:08:14 AM »
I would really, really like to believe that Democrats as a whole (as well as anti-Trump moderates) are smart enough by now to see that the fantasy that electing a billionaire CEO with no government experience IS A STUPID FANTASY THAT IS BEING FREAKING PROVEN RIGHT NOW TO BE DUMB AS HELL.

Eh, I'm a Democrat. I think Howard Schultz would be a much better president than Donald Trump. Just because Trump is a corrupt buffoon who happens to be a billionaire doesn't mean all billionaires are corrupt buffoons. That said, I seriously do not want Schultz to run, and I wouldn't vote for him if he did. I haven't heard him offer any unique ideas for solving the problems our country faces.

Sure. But my dirty gym socks would be a better president than Trump. Just because he's particularly bad doesn't mean we have to try this "Billionaire CEOs know how to run a company, so surely they'll be awesome at running a country!" nonsense again.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2019, 11:25:58 AM »
I would really, really like to believe that Democrats as a whole (as well as anti-Trump moderates) are smart enough by now to see that the fantasy that electing a billionaire CEO with no government experience IS A STUPID FANTASY THAT IS BEING FREAKING PROVEN RIGHT NOW TO BE DUMB AS HELL.

Eh, I'm a Democrat. I think Howard Schultz would be a much better president than Donald Trump. Just because Trump is a corrupt buffoon who happens to be a billionaire doesn't mean all billionaires are corrupt buffoons. That said, I seriously do not want Schultz to run, and I wouldn't vote for him if he did. I haven't heard him offer any unique ideas for solving the problems our country faces.

Sure. But my dirty gym socks would be a better president than Trump. Just because he's particularly bad doesn't mean we have to try this "Billionaire CEOs know how to run a company, so surely they'll be awesome at running a country!" nonsense again.

Agree, we don't need to try it again. I only disagree with the specific assertion that Trump proves it's a bad idea. Joe Bob Cooter who put the "Infowars" sticker in the window at the local tire shop and struggles with the "s" sound because of the situation with his teeth would have been a better president than Trump, but that really doesn't prove anything about billionaires in general. Trump is simply a uniquely bad president person, and it really doesn't make sense to extrapolate his behavior towards any other person just because they have something in common with him. Well, except his family. Particularly Don Jr. and Eric. *shudder*

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3924
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2019, 12:51:21 PM »
I would really, really like to believe that Democrats as a whole (as well as anti-Trump moderates) are smart enough by now to see that the fantasy that electing a billionaire CEO with no government experience IS A STUPID FANTASY THAT IS BEING FREAKING PROVEN RIGHT NOW TO BE DUMB AS HELL.

Eh, I'm a Democrat. I think Howard Schultz would be a much better president than Donald Trump. Just because Trump is a corrupt buffoon who happens to be a billionaire doesn't mean all billionaires are corrupt buffoons. That said, I seriously do not want Schultz to run, and I wouldn't vote for him if he did. I haven't heard him offer any unique ideas for solving the problems our country faces.

Sure. But my dirty gym socks would be a better president than Trump. Just because he's particularly bad doesn't mean we have to try this "Billionaire CEOs know how to run a company, so surely they'll be awesome at running a country!" nonsense again.

Agree, we don't need to try it again. I only disagree with the specific assertion that Trump proves it's a bad idea. Joe Bob Cooter who put the "Infowars" sticker in the window at the local tire shop and struggles with the "s" sound because of the situation with his teeth would have been a better president than Trump, but that really doesn't prove anything about billionaires in general. Trump is simply a uniquely bad president person, and it really doesn't make sense to extrapolate his behavior towards any other person just because they have something in common with him. Well, except his family. Particularly Don Jr. and Eric. *shudder*

One thing you probably can extrapolate is the failure of someone who has never been involved in government or politics to understand the norms within which government works.  One would hope that everyone is aware by now that it's a bad idea to have a foreign government help to elect you, or that continuing to own a business while President creates conflicts, or that foreign policy by tweet isn't a good idea, but without any experience a newbie to the system is always likely to commit some infractions or infelicities that could have been avoided with a bit more inside knowledge.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2019, 01:11:16 PM »
Billionaires don't necessarily know much about policy issues. Look at how stupid Michael Dell looked the other day.

I am with Kris with saying no more billionaires.

And saying someone is better than Trump is saying nothing. Nothing at all. Other than Cruz and Pence, I'm not sure what elected official would be a worse President. My 13-year-old daughter could probably represent the office with more dignity, and I'm not exaggerating when I say that.

Dems are morons if they don't vote for WHOEVER wins the primary with great enthusiasm. I am supporting whoever is their candidate. It doesn't matter who it is. And I likely won't contribute to any primary campaign, as I'll save up for the general instead.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 01:14:14 PM by Nick_Miller »

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2019, 01:26:40 PM »
Speak for yourselves. For example, I'd trust Michael Bloomberg ahead of half the potential Democratic field. I know he has political experience as mayor of New York, but I don't doubt that he'd have done a better job at being president than say, George W. Bush, even with no prior political experience. (Again, I know that W set a low bar to measure against, but I regard him as merely a bottom quartile president, rather than the worst of all time).

bw_94

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2019, 01:38:53 PM »
I'd consider voting for Tulsi Gabbard if the libertarian ticket looks too weak.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #40 on: January 29, 2019, 01:52:35 PM »
Speak for yourselves. For example, I'd trust Michael Bloomberg ahead of half the potential Democratic field. I know he has political experience as mayor of New York, but I don't doubt that he'd have done a better job at being president than say, George W. Bush, even with no prior political experience. (Again, I know that W set a low bar to measure against, but I regard him as merely a bottom quartile president, rather than the worst of all time).

I don't want Bloomberg, but if he was the Dem candidate I would become the biggest f'ing Bloomberg fan you've ever seen! I'd even limit my coke size to medium to appease him!

That's all I'm saying. We all have our preferences but in the end ANY of them are a million times better than who we have.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2019, 01:57:17 PM »
Speak for yourselves. For example, I'd trust Michael Bloomberg ahead of half the potential Democratic field. I know he has political experience as mayor of New York, but I don't doubt that he'd have done a better job at being president than say, George W. Bush, even with no prior political experience. (Again, I know that W set a low bar to measure against, but I regard him as merely a bottom quartile president, rather than the worst of all time).

I don't want Bloomberg, but if he was the Dem candidate I would become the biggest f'ing Bloomberg fan you've ever seen! I'd even limit my coke size to medium to appease him!

That's all I'm saying. We all have our preferences but in the end ANY of them are a million times better than who we have.

Yup.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3614
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #42 on: January 29, 2019, 03:08:39 PM »
 time to update Reagan's old saw about the nine most dangerous words in the English language for the 21st century.

 Now it's, "I'm a famous billionaire and I'm here to help."

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #43 on: January 29, 2019, 04:42:06 PM »
Quote
Fifty-six per cent of respondents in the Washington Post/ABC News survey said they would definitely not vote for Mr Trump if he secures the Republican nomination

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-poll-2020-presidential-election-republicans-democrats-second-term-a8752666.html

I suppose that makes me feel a little better.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2019, 06:37:57 AM »
time to update Reagan's old saw about the nine most dangerous words in the English language for the 21st century.

 Now it's, "I'm a famous billionaire and I'm here to help."

LOL at the "Rich people are evil" vibe on a forum filled with rich people. I'm well aware that there's a big difference between a millionaire and a billionaire, but I don't think it's as big as the difference between a millionaire and (for example) an immigrant refugee family, or a generationally-impoverished minority family. Why are we to assume that millionaires could do a better job of understanding and helping the latter than billionaires? Anyway, this is the last thing I'm going to say on the topic: I genuinely don't give two shits how much money a presidential candidate has. I'd vote for Stacey Abrams, who is $100,000+ in debt and I'd vote for Michael Bloomberg, with a net worth of $50 billion+. As mentioned above, I won't pitch a fit and sit out the 2020 elections regardless of who the nominee is.

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #45 on: January 30, 2019, 07:53:15 AM »
It's a dumb time for Howard Schultz to throw his hat in the ring.

The whole world is basically in a tug of war between an irresponsible fuck-the-world populism and a careful yet complacent corporate progressive globalism.

Meanwhile, a progressive corporate global elite is running because he thinks he would be more appealing to the right than a regular democrat.

I don't get it. I think his past success has given him the notion that his insight is infallible.




Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3614
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #46 on: January 30, 2019, 08:10:05 AM »
time to update Reagan's old saw about the nine most dangerous words in the English language for the 21st century.

 Now it's, "I'm a famous billionaire and I'm here to help."

LOL at the "Rich people are evil" vibe on a forum filled with rich people. I'm well aware that there's a big difference between a millionaire and a billionaire, but I don't think it's as big as the difference between a millionaire and (for example) an immigrant refugee family, or a generationally-impoverished minority family. Why are we to assume that millionaires could do a better job of understanding and helping the latter than billionaires? Anyway, this is the last thing I'm going to say on the topic: I genuinely don't give two shits how much money a presidential candidate has. I'd vote for Stacey Abrams, who is $100,000+ in debt and I'd vote for Michael Bloomberg, with a net worth of $50 billion+. As mentioned above, I won't pitch a fit and sit out the 2020 elections regardless of who the nominee is.

I think you're missing the point -- which has already been stated upthread. But I'll try to be more clear.

It has nothing to do with "rich people are evil." (I have no idea where you got that, since nothing like that has been stated or even implied.) It's the ridiculous hubris of a billionaire businessperson who says to himself: "I alone can fix it" (or something of the sort). The egotistical, deluded belief that because one has made money in a corporate environment, that qualifies them to begin a career in politics -- not by, say, running for city council, or getting on the school board, or hell, even contemplating a run for mayor. Nope: as President of the United States. A job they have absolutely no qualifications for whatsoever, other than being rich. Perhaps they should also walk into the operating theater and do open-heart surgery on your grandma, as well? Or get a job as the head of a nuclear power plant?

And yes, there is actually a difference between a billionaire and a millionaire in this case. Why? Because a millionaire doesn't have the ability to command the same media attention, or buy the same access. I am a millionaire, but if I decided to launch a run for the presidency, I'd just be one of those kooks that everyone would ignore, and maybe twelve people would vote for in the general. I don't have the money or the name recognition to be taken seriously.

You know what I would like? Someone actually qualified to hold the highest office in the land. And sorry, but someone who has never bothered to serve in any government position before doesn't know what the hell they're doing. Trump is too stupid to be president. But even a non-stupid person with no governmental experience should not be in that job. There's too much of a learning curve. FFS, I honestly can't even believe that's up for debate.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #47 on: January 30, 2019, 08:10:49 AM »
time to update Reagan's old saw about the nine most dangerous words in the English language for the 21st century.

 Now it's, "I'm a famous billionaire and I'm here to help."

LOL at the "Rich people are evil" vibe on a forum filled with rich people. I'm well aware that there's a big difference between a millionaire and a billionaire, but I don't think it's as big as the difference between a millionaire and (for example) an immigrant refugee family, or a generationally-impoverished minority family. Why are we to assume that millionaires could do a better job of understanding and helping the latter than billionaires? Anyway, this is the last thing I'm going to say on the topic: I genuinely don't give two shits how much money a presidential candidate has. I'd vote for Stacey Abrams, who is $100,000+ in debt and I'd vote for Michael Bloomberg, with a net worth of $50 billion+. As mentioned above, I won't pitch a fit and sit out the 2020 elections regardless of who the nominee is.

I'm with you in that I don't think massive wealth is disqualifying for a candidate, but I still see it a strike. All else being equal, I would go with a less wealthy candidate.

As for the idea that the difference between the poor and a millionaire is greater than the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire? First, I'm not sure I would agree with that but more importantly I think it's the wrong comparison. Why not compare millionaire vs poor and billionaire vs poor?

One more thing, doesn't it matter how the potential candidate became wealthy? I would be much more opposed to someone who was born into money than someone who worked their way up to it.

ETA: Thanks Kris, I think your last post clarifies your stance a bit. It's not the billionaire status so much as the billionaire status which creates hubris which leads to individuals with no experience thinking they have all the answers. Which to be fair you did say earlier but maybe we weren't separating these ideas:

electing a billionaire CEO with no government experience IS A STUPID FANTASY

So the lack of experience is your real issue?
« Last Edit: January 30, 2019, 08:21:44 AM by Dabnasty »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3614
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #48 on: January 30, 2019, 08:24:29 AM »
time to update Reagan's old saw about the nine most dangerous words in the English language for the 21st century.

 Now it's, "I'm a famous billionaire and I'm here to help."

LOL at the "Rich people are evil" vibe on a forum filled with rich people. I'm well aware that there's a big difference between a millionaire and a billionaire, but I don't think it's as big as the difference between a millionaire and (for example) an immigrant refugee family, or a generationally-impoverished minority family. Why are we to assume that millionaires could do a better job of understanding and helping the latter than billionaires? Anyway, this is the last thing I'm going to say on the topic: I genuinely don't give two shits how much money a presidential candidate has. I'd vote for Stacey Abrams, who is $100,000+ in debt and I'd vote for Michael Bloomberg, with a net worth of $50 billion+. As mentioned above, I won't pitch a fit and sit out the 2020 elections regardless of who the nominee is.

I'm with you in that I don't think massive wealth is disqualifying for a candidate, but I still see it a strike. All else being equal, I would go with a less wealthy candidate.

As for the idea that the difference between the poor and a millionaire is greater than the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire? First, I'm not sure I would agree with that but more importantly I think it's the wrong comparison. Why not compare millionaire vs poor and billionaire vs poor?

One more thing, doesn't it matter how the potential candidate became wealthy? I would be much more opposed to someone who was born into money than someone who worked their way up to it.

ETA: Thanks Kris, I think your last post clarifies your stance a bit. It's not the billionaire status so much as the billionaire status which creates hubris which leads to individuals with no experience thinking they have all the answers. Which to be fair you did say earlier but maybe we weren't separating these ideas:

electing a billionaire CEO with no government experience IS A STUPID FANTASY

So the lack of experience is your real issue?

Lack of experience + hubris is a bad combo. Especially bad when you are running for the highest office in the land. And yeah, the billionaire status means that they can create a buzz around them, aided by the media (like, why exactly are we even taking this guy's potential candidacy seriously? Oh yeah, because he's a billionaire so it's news!!!)  -- and that there are always going to be some people deluded enough to believe the hype.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #49 on: January 30, 2019, 08:43:36 AM »
time to update Reagan's old saw about the nine most dangerous words in the English language for the 21st century.

 Now it's, "I'm a famous billionaire and I'm here to help."

LOL at the "Rich people are evil" vibe on a forum filled with rich people. I'm well aware that there's a big difference between a millionaire and a billionaire, but I don't think it's as big as the difference between a millionaire and (for example) an immigrant refugee family, or a generationally-impoverished minority family. Why are we to assume that millionaires could do a better job of understanding and helping the latter than billionaires? Anyway, this is the last thing I'm going to say on the topic: I genuinely don't give two shits how much money a presidential candidate has. I'd vote for Stacey Abrams, who is $100,000+ in debt and I'd vote for Michael Bloomberg, with a net worth of $50 billion+. As mentioned above, I won't pitch a fit and sit out the 2020 elections regardless of who the nominee is.

I'm with you in that I don't think massive wealth is disqualifying for a candidate, but I still see it a strike. All else being equal, I would go with a less wealthy candidate.

As for the idea that the difference between the poor and a millionaire is greater than the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire? First, I'm not sure I would agree with that but more importantly I think it's the wrong comparison. Why not compare millionaire vs poor and billionaire vs poor?

One more thing, doesn't it matter how the potential candidate became wealthy? I would be much more opposed to someone who was born into money than someone who worked their way up to it.

ETA: Thanks Kris, I think your last post clarifies your stance a bit. It's not the billionaire status so much as the billionaire status which creates hubris which leads to individuals with no experience thinking they have all the answers. Which to be fair you did say earlier but maybe we weren't separating these ideas:

electing a billionaire CEO with no government experience IS A STUPID FANTASY

So the lack of experience is your real issue?

Lack of experience + hubris is a bad combo. Especially bad when you are running for the highest office in the land. And yeah, the billionaire status means that they can create a buzz around them, aided by the media (like, why exactly are we even taking this guy's potential candidacy seriously? Oh yeah, because he's a billionaire so it's news!!!)  -- and that there are always going to be some people deluded enough to believe the hype.

I'm completely with you on the lack of experience + hubris, especially with regard to Shultz, but that's not where your focus was for most of the conversation. You just seemed especially focused on the fact that he was a billionaire businessman (which has no effect on my opinion of him as a presidential candidate) and less focused on the fact that he has no political experience, no novel ideas, and only seems to support fiscal policies that are good for him personally. You're absolutely correct that the only reason he's generating so much buzz is because he is a billionaire, but personally, I find that to be a fault with the media - and the people who consume media - not with Schultz himself.