Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 146625 times)

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1050 on: October 02, 2019, 10:58:44 AM »
Seems Bernie had some stents placed and will take a temporary vacation from campaigning while he recovers.
https://www.apnews.com/eab21e66d7734867b8620fe9efaeb8a2

Hope he recovers well, but we really don't need a super-old person in the oval office. We need them to be healthy. And that is independent of party, or any specific candidate.

I likewise hope Senator Sanders gets well soon.  My understanding from a limited news story I heard on the radio suggested it was not a super serious thing.

Obviously it will bring out the "don't elect an old person" argument.  "Old white man bad" was part of my thinking about why I predicted Biden and Sanders wouldn't get the nomination.  Warren is a mostly white woman over 70.  I wasn't sure how that would play, but it is obviously currently playing well.

I'm very curious to see the polling in a month or so as the Ukraine issue moves along however it does.  Third quarter fundraising numbers also will be a briefly interesting story and data point (Sanders and Buttigieg raised the most dollars, Harris did about the same as she has.  Biden and Warren appear not to have reported numbers yet).

It might be a small thing, but if I worked in either Pete's or Yang's campaigns, I would encourage the candidates to highlight their youth as much as possible! So they wouldn't be slamming anyone, just reminding people that they are young and energetic. Pete has already had his "slide moment" at the Iowa Fair, and Yang dances, crowd surfs, plays basketball, etc. I think those moments play well when you consider the "top" options are all over 70 years old.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4106
  • Age: 28
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1051 on: October 02, 2019, 11:15:53 AM »
More candidate/campaign news...

Sanders $25M
Pete $19M
Kamala $11M
Yang(!) $10M
Booker $6M
Booker $2M

Trump $125M (Wow!)(but this includes RNC $ too)

And Bernie had some stents put in today. We'll see how soon he bounces back.

But really to me the biggest news is Yang raising $10M. Geez. He started out as just as much of a "nobody" as Pete, perhaps more so, and he's a real player now.

My dream debate at this point would be Warren versus Pete versus Yang. I think the country would be much better off hearing from the three of them share their policy ideas and visions of America.
Are there two Bookers running? :P

I agree about Yang though.  I had seen the number but I didn't see it in the full context of just below Harris' number.  That's pretty damn impressive.  And I know he's essentially entirely small-dollar donors too.  At one point he bragged that his donors were "even cheaper than Bernie's" in terms of average donation amount, not sure if that still applies.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1052 on: October 02, 2019, 11:35:45 AM »
The others are waiting, hoping that some exogenous factor (a Gary Hart-type scandal, a Rick Perry-type debate gaffe) destroys one or more of the leaders, and the people will search out and elevate one of them as a replacement.
With the (currently) top three candidates being in their middle, late, and early 70s, my guess would be that the most likely exogenous factor is medically related.
Well, it didn't take long for that prediction to come to fruition.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4106
  • Age: 28
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1053 on: October 02, 2019, 11:39:50 AM »
The others are waiting, hoping that some exogenous factor (a Gary Hart-type scandal, a Rick Perry-type debate gaffe) destroys one or more of the leaders, and the people will search out and elevate one of them as a replacement.
With the (currently) top three candidates being in their middle, late, and early 70s, my guess would be that the most likely exogenous factor is medically related.
Well, it didn't take long for that prediction to come to fruition.
Oof, get well Bernie!

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4695
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1054 on: October 02, 2019, 12:06:32 PM »
Seems Bernie had some stents placed and will take a temporary vacation from campaigning while he recovers.
https://www.apnews.com/eab21e66d7734867b8620fe9efaeb8a2

Hope he recovers well, but we really don't need a super-old person in the oval office. We need them to be healthy. And that is independent of party, or any specific candidate.

Agreed. Sorry, regardless of my feelings one way or another about his policies, I do not want a 78-year-old (would be 79, at the time he took office) as a president. And there's no way I could vote to nominate one.

If he got the nomination, I would vote for him as president, but only because the Republican is so very much worse.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1055 on: October 02, 2019, 12:19:38 PM »
More candidate/campaign news...

Sanders $25M
Pete $19M
Kamala $11M
Yang(!) $10M
Booker $6M
Booker $2M

Trump $125M (Wow!)(but this includes RNC $ too)

And Bernie had some stents put in today. We'll see how soon he bounces back.

But really to me the biggest news is Yang raising $10M. Geez. He started out as just as much of a "nobody" as Pete, perhaps more so, and he's a real player now.

My dream debate at this point would be Warren versus Pete versus Yang. I think the country would be much better off hearing from the three of them share their policy ideas and visions of America.
Are there two Bookers running? :P

I agree about Yang though.  I had seen the number but I didn't see it in the full context of just below Harris' number.  That's pretty damn impressive.  And I know he's essentially entirely small-dollar donors too.  At one point he bragged that his donors were "even cheaper than Bernie's" in terms of average donation amount, not sure if that still applies.

Wait...ARE there two Bookers running? -checks google- No, my bad. "Booker 2" was really Senator Bennet! Sorry, there are just so many Bs to keep straight. I fixed my post.


secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2548
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1056 on: October 02, 2019, 12:37:20 PM »
The others are waiting, hoping that some exogenous factor (a Gary Hart-type scandal, a Rick Perry-type debate gaffe) destroys one or more of the leaders, and the people will search out and elevate one of them as a replacement.
With the (currently) top three candidates being in their middle, late, and early 70s, my guess would be that the most likely exogenous factor is medically related.
Well, it didn't take long for that prediction to come to fruition.

Indeed.  It's really was (hindsight 20/20 yada yada) statistically pretty likely for something to come up.  Even though they're wealthy and educated (which correlate with good health I think?), it would be surprising to pick three people that age without something going on.  My Dad is 83 and lives in a CCRC - probably half of them have something visibly wrong.  I once made the mistake of saying to a lady there that she looked pretty healthy, and she immediately corrected me and listed off six or eight different major things wrong with her body...they just weren't visible at the time.

To me it remains to be seen how the Ukraine issue helps or hurts Biden's candidacy.  I would consider it to be an exogenous factor of the kind I was thinking of in my original post quoted above.

Interestingly, I have seen stories suggesting that a new Democrat candidate might enter the race and might become the front runner.  I personally find this possibility unlikely.  Names mentioned explicitly or implicitly are Michelle Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi (!).

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4695
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1057 on: October 02, 2019, 01:30:12 PM »
The others are waiting, hoping that some exogenous factor (a Gary Hart-type scandal, a Rick Perry-type debate gaffe) destroys one or more of the leaders, and the people will search out and elevate one of them as a replacement.
With the (currently) top three candidates being in their middle, late, and early 70s, my guess would be that the most likely exogenous factor is medically related.
Well, it didn't take long for that prediction to come to fruition.

Indeed.  It's really was (hindsight 20/20 yada yada) statistically pretty likely for something to come up.  Even though they're wealthy and educated (which correlate with good health I think?), it would be surprising to pick three people that age without something going on.  My Dad is 83 and lives in a CCRC - probably half of them have something visibly wrong.  I once made the mistake of saying to a lady there that she looked pretty healthy, and she immediately corrected me and listed off six or eight different major things wrong with her body...they just weren't visible at the time.

To me it remains to be seen how the Ukraine issue helps or hurts Biden's candidacy.  I would consider it to be an exogenous factor of the kind I was thinking of in my original post quoted above.

Interestingly, I have seen stories suggesting that a new Democrat candidate might enter the race and might become the front runner.  I personally find this possibility unlikely.  Names mentioned explicitly or implicitly are Michelle Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi (!).

LOL. All of those names seem astronomically unlikely.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Location: Southern California
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1058 on: October 02, 2019, 01:48:12 PM »
The others are waiting, hoping that some exogenous factor (a Gary Hart-type scandal, a Rick Perry-type debate gaffe) destroys one or more of the leaders, and the people will search out and elevate one of them as a replacement.
With the (currently) top three candidates being in their middle, late, and early 70s, my guess would be that the most likely exogenous factor is medically related.
Well, it didn't take long for that prediction to come to fruition.

Indeed.  It's really was (hindsight 20/20 yada yada) statistically pretty likely for something to come up.  Even though they're wealthy and educated (which correlate with good health I think?), it would be surprising to pick three people that age without something going on.  My Dad is 83 and lives in a CCRC - probably half of them have something visibly wrong.  I once made the mistake of saying to a lady there that she looked pretty healthy, and she immediately corrected me and listed off six or eight different major things wrong with her body...they just weren't visible at the time.

To me it remains to be seen how the Ukraine issue helps or hurts Biden's candidacy.  I would consider it to be an exogenous factor of the kind I was thinking of in my original post quoted above.

Interestingly, I have seen stories suggesting that a new Democrat candidate might enter the race and might become the front runner.  I personally find this possibility unlikely.  Names mentioned explicitly or implicitly are Michelle Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi (!).

Michelle would be the only one of those three with a chance. The only person who could elicit a republican turnout greater than Clinton would be Pelosi. I would definitely vote for her though, she's been proven extremely levelheaded and one of the most intelligent people in office.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1222
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1059 on: October 02, 2019, 02:30:52 PM »
I think you're at a point in the USA that anyone pro-Republican is anti-USA, certainly anti-democracy, anti-equality and anti-environment and totally immoral.

How many Republican Americans do you know?

Your talk is civil war type talk, and I'm glad you don't live here.  You are demonizing people and that is wrong.

1. Lots

2. People can't be both good people and vote for the Republicans, atm they are mutually exclusive. You've got a GOP that's hell bent of rigging the system through extreme gerry mandering, voter suppression, hypocrisy (eg, Supreme Court shenanigans for fuckstick McConnell) who are silently acquiescing a bumbling, kleptomaniac proto-dictator who is entirely happy to make the world worse and ramp up white supremacists, racists and idiots to stay exactly as evil as he always way.

You support that? You're a bad person until you change. Doesn't matter what people say: supporting someone like that is immoral. Straight up.

Please. I don't support trump, and I'd vote against McConnell if I could. But in my state, the democrats are guilty of everything you listed. Gerrymandering: Check. Voter Suppression: Does having  public employee union members threaten me at work count?  Hypocrisy - check. Playing games to prevent new taxes from being referred to the voters? Check. Lying about a bill that outright negates something the voters overwhelmingly upheld in a recent election? Check. Supporting a bumbling, kleptomaniac proto-dictator who is too beholden to her union donors to do the right thing while bankrupting our schools and accepting some of the worse outcomes in the country for education, among many other things? check.   I think you're morally bankrupt to vote for a D in oregon.

I think the poster was talking about federal representation. Your state and federal parties can act in different ways and sometimes may act against each other in certain respects.

Some states have 2 reasonable parties
Some states have 1 reasonable party
Some states have 2 crazy parties

Oregon absolutely falls in the last category.

However, on the federal level there is only one party that is absolutely against anti-gerrymandering and higher voter turnout laws and regulations. The GOP knows that if the playing field were evened across the country that they'd be in the minority. Therefor they stand against such rules.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3665
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1060 on: October 02, 2019, 02:32:49 PM »
What is funny is that I think those are the people I think Republicans wish were running, so I wouldn't be surprised if Russian spamming. Republicans regularly feature pelosi and Clinton in their fundraising letters.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1061 on: October 02, 2019, 02:36:59 PM »
The others are waiting, hoping that some exogenous factor (a Gary Hart-type scandal, a Rick Perry-type debate gaffe) destroys one or more of the leaders, and the people will search out and elevate one of them as a replacement.
With the (currently) top three candidates being in their middle, late, and early 70s, my guess would be that the most likely exogenous factor is medically related.
Well, it didn't take long for that prediction to come to fruition.

Indeed.  It's really was (hindsight 20/20 yada yada) statistically pretty likely for something to come up.  Even though they're wealthy and educated (which correlate with good health I think?), it would be surprising to pick three people that age without something going on.  My Dad is 83 and lives in a CCRC - probably half of them have something visibly wrong.  I once made the mistake of saying to a lady there that she looked pretty healthy, and she immediately corrected me and listed off six or eight different major things wrong with her body...they just weren't visible at the time.

To me it remains to be seen how the Ukraine issue helps or hurts Biden's candidacy.  I would consider it to be an exogenous factor of the kind I was thinking of in my original post quoted above.

Interestingly, I have seen stories suggesting that a new Democrat candidate might enter the race and might become the front runner.  I personally find this possibility unlikely.  Names mentioned explicitly or implicitly are Michelle Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi (!).

Michelle would be the only one of those three with a chance. The only person who could elicit a republican turnout greater than Clinton would be Pelosi. I would definitely vote for her though, she's been proven extremely levelheaded and one of the most intelligent people in office.

And Michelle has NO desire to run. My wife read her bio and said one of the main takeaways is "No way do I want to ever run!" It was incredibly taxing on their family.

Clinton and Pelosi (who is older than Bernie!) would get beaten like drums.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Location: Southern California
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1062 on: October 02, 2019, 02:37:54 PM »
I wish the Democrats would use this to their advantage and run somebody completely fresh....kinda like Obama heh. Too bad some of the younger candidates have absolutely insane ideas. Beto has shot himself in the foot (with an AR15!) and Yang does not inspire with his naive ideas.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2548
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1063 on: October 02, 2019, 02:45:13 PM »
What is funny is that I think those are the people I think Republicans wish were running, so I wouldn't be surprised if Russian spamming. Republicans regularly feature pelosi and Clinton in their fundraising letters.

I put Pelosi in the list because of Mark Shields' statements here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kPVNUlXqJ4&feature=youtu.be&t=426

He's not actually talking about her running explicitly, but it sure sounded like high praise of the kind I thought was suggestive.  Mark Shields is a registered Democrat per Wikipedia.

Since I don't think any of the three names I listed would actually run, currently I'm not thinking much about their chances of success.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1064 on: October 02, 2019, 02:46:34 PM »
What is funny is that I think those are the people I think Republicans wish were running, so I wouldn't be surprised if Russian spamming. Republicans regularly feature pelosi and Clinton in their fundraising letters.

I know it's unfortunate to have to say this, but I really think the Dems would have a better chance if they could run an alpha male. It would be Trump's downfall to run against a bad ass guy who just happened to have some liberal ideas.

Beto is tall. Pete had some military training. Booker is charming. Bernie is aggressive. Biden is...I don't know. Maybe if you put them all together in some sort of hodgepodge way, you'd have an alpha male, but none of them independently scream that at all.  Beto doesn't have an edge. Pete is short and looks younger than he is. Bernie is ancient and frazzled. Booker seems almost too nice (one article compared his debating points to things a sitcom dad might say to scold others).

Someone like Steve Bullock might have done well against Trump, who knows? But he waited too long to jump in.


Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Location: Southern California
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1065 on: October 02, 2019, 02:53:49 PM »
I think you're wrong Nick. John Kerry and John McCain were both smeared relentlessly despite distinguished histories. No matter how alpha, the media and/or opposing party can cut a candidate to their knees.

What we need is competence, America first, and a unity platform. I think Bernie had the most chance as even though he's a little crazy he eschewed things like gun bans and reparations. Both this issues guaranteed to raise the hackles of a LOT of people. Every other Dem seems happy to cater to issues that will bring negligible benefit at the cost of the office they seek.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1066 on: October 02, 2019, 06:33:58 PM »
I wish the Democrats would use this to their advantage and run somebody completely fresh....kinda like Obama heh. Too bad some of the younger candidates have absolutely insane ideas. Beto has shot himself in the foot (with an AR15!) and Yang does not inspire with his naive ideas.
We are in a post-ideology ideological phase. Gabbard is one of the few with an actual coherent philosophical idea on how to govern the US. Domestic issues are all the rage but it's the US's foreign policy that will help define the century. Here is my estimation of some of the candidates on FP:

Biden: ranging from status-quo to Obama-esque reticence with an occasional forceful embrace of soft and hard power-backed realpolitik
Warren: status quo with lip-service to reduced engagement; position will gradually erode to embrace activist containment of geopolitical threats (Hillary-lite)
Bernie: idealistic position that will crumble at the first sign of trouble; will fall into the quagmire of forging grand global coalitions that fail to coherently emerge to contain whatever threat prevails
Pete: cold, calculating faux-aloofness that embraces a nominally transactional view of FP with a tacit belief in perpetual US hegemony (in other words, very reasonable)
Yang: will depend on his FP advisors; will probably listen to them if they can make a data-based argument that appeals to his technocratic tendencies
Williamson: (she needs to be in more debates, people!): mood crystals FTW!
Harris: "can we sue other world leaders?"
Gabbard: philosophical displeasure at US global-policing and an explicit rejection of the post-Bretton Woods US-enforced geopolitical order; more Trump on this issue than actual Trump
The others: who even cares?

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 815
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1067 on: October 03, 2019, 07:14:44 AM »
Nearly ten Dem candidates, many with pieces of cogent policy.  Now, to roll them into one pragmatic person...

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1068 on: October 03, 2019, 10:10:39 AM »
The perfect candidate simply does not exist. People who are highly esteemed years after their presidency were typically not canonized at the time they were candidates. The search for perfection is often the Democratic party Achilles heel. I personally try to look not at if they are a perfect match for my ideals, but who is going to move the needle the most in the right direction. On that metric, I personally like Warren, Buttigeg, and Harris the best. I like pretty much all of the candidates and think they would be fine (big exception for Williamson who is batshit crazy). I wish their was  a reasonable political path for Mayor Pete to get a bit more executive experience, but given the political environment in Indiana, it seems reasonable for him to try and jump straight to the big leagues.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2019, 10:04:55 PM by Glenstache »

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1069 on: October 04, 2019, 08:11:58 PM »
^uh, Pete is Indiana, not Illinois

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1070 on: October 04, 2019, 10:05:24 PM »
^uh, Pete is Indiana, not Illinois
Thanks for catching the brain fart. Corrected.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2069
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1071 on: October 05, 2019, 04:51:06 AM »
Trump raised $45 million online in the third quarter for his re-election, a 29% increase.  313,000 small-dollar donations were by first-time donors. (WSJ)

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2069
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1072 on: October 05, 2019, 05:01:13 AM »
Also, Sanders had a heart attack. 

While I wish him great health overall, I think this hurts his campaign.  At 78, he would be finishing a first term at 82, if he completes a first term.  It is extremely ambitious to run for President at 78.  (or 76, Biden's age)

I was talking to a co-worker yesterday who is helping her aging parents move to a new house.  She said that around age 73, (that is Trump's current age) they became much more needy and lean on her more (and she is feeling the stress).  Her dad fell down the stairs of the new house and hurt his hip and her mom has exhausted herself with wanting to clean the new place, and she's calling/texting her daughter (who just started a new job) to come and help.

My in-laws just passed 70 and they are still very independent, active, functional, but sadly, those years have limits, and we just don't know how many more good years there are.  My uncle was pretty outgoing and pretty active until about 85 when things slowed down dramatically.

Of course, everyone is different and we can only hope for the best and try to take care of our health along the way.

« Last Edit: October 05, 2019, 05:14:06 AM by KBecks »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2069
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1073 on: October 05, 2019, 05:09:10 AM »

Reagan was 73, nearing 74, when he was elected for a 2nd term, and he is the oldest to date.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2019, 05:12:45 AM by KBecks »

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4817
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1074 on: October 05, 2019, 06:34:35 AM »

Reagan was 73, nearing 74, when he was elected for a 2nd term, and he is the oldest to date.
Second term is a bit different from a first, because the steepest learning curve is at the start of the first: keeping something going is easier than starting new.  Plus, isn't there a thought that Reagan was showing dementia symptoms by the end of his second term?

I think it would be a matter for regret if either Biden or Bernie was elected, because of their ages and (respectively) son and health.  The big problem at the moment is that their presence is preventing many of the other candidates from getting a serious look.  If both pulled out things would get interesting again.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2069
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1075 on: October 05, 2019, 06:56:05 AM »
Yes, that would be interesting.  You'd have Warren, Pete and Kamala as the top three.  Very interesting.


secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2548
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1076 on: October 05, 2019, 09:55:54 AM »
Yes, that would be interesting.  You'd have Warren, Pete and Kamala as the top three.  Very interesting.

I think Warren would be the front runner because I think she gets a lot of Sanders supporters.

I think Biden's support would go to Klobuchar mostly.  Might put her into the "top 4" category.

I did predict a while ago that I didn't think Biden or Sanders would succeed.  I still don't.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1362
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1077 on: October 05, 2019, 12:04:41 PM »
Elizabeth Warren is 70.
Bernie Sanders is 78.
Joe Biden is 76.

Maybe all of them know the end of the rocky road is near and want to do some real good before it ends.  I like to think so.

Some folks reading this may be 35.  They've learned a lot in their 35 years.  Just think how much more they will have learned before they get to the age of these esteemed politicians.  It's another 35 years+.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14639
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1078 on: October 05, 2019, 12:49:30 PM »
That's not a great argument for choosing a decrepit leader.


Typically, the older you are the harder it is to learn new things.  They typical person will learn far, far less from the time they turn 35 until they die than they will have in the first 35 years of their life.  Indeed, they rely more an more upon spitting out the things they've already learned or making connections between things already learned (crystallized intelligence).





On average, from about the age of 50 cognitive decline begins (although accumulated knowledge can mask these declines for a period).  From about the age of 70 on, there is a much greater rate of reduction in mental ability.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2683339/

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1362
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1079 on: October 05, 2019, 01:24:16 PM »
That's on average.  These are exceptional human beings.  Could they be exceptions?  Does this property follow a standard distribution?  How much variability in this relationship you proffer?  Seems like some of the old duffers are pretty sharp.  Even if the rate of learning slows, a lot can be learned at the slower rate in the additional 35 years.

A lot of societies revere the aged.  There are reasons.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14639
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1080 on: October 05, 2019, 01:36:35 PM »
Could be true.

But so far there has only been one president in history elected at the age of 70 or higher . . . and he's been demonstrating his senility and poor decision making ever since.  Revere away.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1362
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1081 on: October 05, 2019, 02:31:59 PM »
That's a sample size of one.  Although I will give you this one.  It's almost a sample size of two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan  Another 30-40 days and you would have two.

Not a very good record for those of 70 and over.

Unless things change between now and November 2020, your Southern Neighbor will have a 70 year old leader.  The 3 top Dems are 70 and over and so is Trump.

If Trump is impeached, it will be a whole new ballgame.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14639
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1082 on: October 05, 2019, 03:30:58 PM »
Yeah, bring up Regan - formally diagnosed with Alzheimer's five years after leaving office . . . whose son claims that he was showing signs and symptoms three years into his first term.

:P

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2548
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1083 on: October 10, 2019, 01:58:11 PM »
Back to 2020 POTUS candidates?

Biden's Q3 fundraising was $15.2 million.  Sample link, there are many:  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/joe-biden-trails-rivals-15-2-million-raised-third-quarter-n1062251

Gabbard is considering boycotting the debate.  "In order to bring attention to this serious threat to our democracy, and ensure your voice is heard, I am giving serious consideration to boycotting the next debate on October 15th." https://www.tulsi2020.com/election-process

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1084 on: October 10, 2019, 03:48:07 PM »

Gabbard is considering boycotting the debate.  "In order to bring attention to this serious threat to our democracy, and ensure your voice is heard, I am giving serious consideration to boycotting the next debate on October 15th." https://www.tulsi2020.com/election-process

There are 282 candidates who have registered to run for President as Democrats in 2020.  If they didn't draw the line somewhere, a debate where each got to speak for ten minutes would take 47 hours straight.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1085 on: October 10, 2019, 03:51:48 PM »
Gabbard is considering boycotting the debate.  "In order to bring attention to this serious threat to our democracy, and ensure your voice is heard, I am giving serious consideration to boycotting the next debate on October 15th." https://www.tulsi2020.com/election-process
That's quite the desperation move. I'd put the under/over date of her dropping out at January 1st.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1362
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1086 on: October 10, 2019, 06:01:07 PM »
Seems like she is the most serious anti-war candidate.  Many of the others give it at best lip service.  The media is making it too easy to ignore these "forever" wars.

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
  • Location: USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1087 on: October 12, 2019, 10:13:26 AM »
Seems like she is the most serious anti-war candidate.  Many of the others give it at best lip service.  The media is making it too easy to ignore these "forever" wars.

Yeah, it's depressing. The way we're leaving Syria now is clumsy, messy, and poorly done (to say nothing of how we may well have been manipulated by Turkey in a single phone call) however, entering that conflict in the first place, without Congressional approval, a mission, or public support or even awareness... I say we unmake that decision as quickly as possible.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1088 on: October 12, 2019, 10:45:05 AM »
One of the things that the Trump presidency has done is corrode the concept of public service as an end unto itself. The most common refrain against anyone is that they are acting in self service above the service to country (thus normalizing Trumpís own self dealing). Among the 2020 candidates, how do people rank the individualís prioritization of public service as a core value? Are any of them particularly high or low in your estimation? Iíd rather exclude Trump from this as he is such an historic outlier.

I like Buttigeg and Warren in this respect. Harris has a long history of ambition (not a bad quality in my mind), but could have done better for herself financially in the private sector given her apparent skill as a lawyer.

Thoughts?

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2166
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1089 on: October 12, 2019, 01:51:12 PM »
Seems like she is the most serious anti-war candidate.  Many of the others give it at best lip service.  The media is making it too easy to ignore these "forever" wars.

Yeah, it's depressing. The way we're leaving Syria now is clumsy, messy, and poorly done (to say nothing of how we may well have been manipulated by Turkey in a single phone call) however, entering that conflict in the first place, without Congressional approval, a mission, or public support or even awareness... I say we unmake that decision as quickly as possible.

+2

My vote is strictly an anti-war vote. Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the only one talking foreign policy, which is one place where the president has the most influence. Why don't any of the other candidates touch this topic?

If she drops out, my vote is up for grabs for anyone talking foreign policy regardless of their party affiliation, even if it means I am "throwing away my vote".

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4106
  • Age: 28
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1090 on: October 12, 2019, 01:55:31 PM »
One of the things that the Trump presidency has done is corrode the concept of public service as an end unto itself. The most common refrain against anyone is that they are acting in self service above the service to country (thus normalizing Trumpís own self dealing). Among the 2020 candidates, how do people rank the individualís prioritization of public service as a core value? Are any of them particularly high or low in your estimation? Iíd rather exclude Trump from this as he is such an historic outlier.

I like Buttigeg and Warren in this respect. Harris has a long history of ambition (not a bad quality in my mind), but could have done better for herself financially in the private sector given her apparent skill as a lawyer.

Thoughts?
Yang.

Quote
As President, I will:

    Pledge to accept no speaking fees or board positions for personal gain after leaving office.
    Pass legislation raising the next Presidentís salary to $4 million but barring them from any speaking fees or board positions for personal gain after leaving office.
    Increase salaries for government officials who operate in a regulatory capacity to much higher levels, but ban them from receiving anything of value in exchange for advocating for a position (lobbying) to members of the federal government.
    Provide an Anti-Corruption Stipend for all members of the Executive Branch after the termination of their employment, to be paid as long as they donít accept anything of value in exchange for advocating for a position to members of the federal government.
 

https://www.yang2020.com/blog/restoring-democracy-rebuilding-trust/

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1091 on: October 12, 2019, 06:20:48 PM »
Yeah, it's depressing. The way we're leaving Syria now is clumsy, messy, and poorly done (to say nothing of how we may well have been manipulated by Turkey in a single phone call) however, entering that conflict in the first place, without Congressional approval, a mission, or public support or even awareness... I say we unmake that decision as quickly as possible.
My vote is strictly an anti-war vote. Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the only one talking foreign policy, which is one place where the president has the most influence. Why don't any of the other candidates touch this topic?
I think GrayGhost's post shows exactly why other candidates don't want to touch the topic. A nuanced argument regarding how the Democratic candidate agrees with an objective of the Trump administration (e.g., pulling out of Syria, meetings with N. Korea, decreasing our military presence in Europe, etc.) but not the method of implementation, is not something that will likely resonate well on the campaign trail.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1092 on: October 16, 2019, 07:36:46 AM »
Another (way too crowded!) debate in the books...

I thought Pete and Klobuchar did great. Both seem like voices of reason against the tide of Medicare for all, mandatory gun buy-backs, etc. Pete was commanding, which he needed to be, because he's young and short and (yes, I'll say it because some Americans still view his orientation as a liability) gay. Regarding foreign policy, the mayor of a smallish city seemed stronger than any of the senators or congresspeople, or hell even the former VP.

I wish this Klobuchar would have shown up earlier. I nodded to virtually everything she said. She was right to keep hammering that Warren's plans are not the litmus test for Democrats, or to determine whether or not you "care about normal people." It won't happen, but I think a Buttigieg/Klobuchar team would be very effective in a general election.

Bernie seemed spry, he cracked some jokes, and he's apparently picking up "The Squad"'s endorsement this weekend, so I guess the message is he isn't going anywhere. I think he's at his best when he's funny and more soft-spoken. Him thanking people for their well wishes was him at his authentic best.

Booker was his normal charming self, and Warren fended off the frequent attacks pretty well, but I think her continued refusal to lump in all expenses as "costs" is getting really old.

Will anyone get a bump from this? Who knows? I hope Pete does, but debate performances really haven't moved the needle other than Kamala's initial short lived bounce in the summer.

I sort of hope that Beto, Klobuchar, Castro, and Gabbard don't make the November debate. I like Klobuchar's voice, but it's just so crowded. 8 in a debate would be a step in the right direction in November.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 340
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1093 on: October 16, 2019, 08:09:28 AM »
This was the first time I had seen Biden live in a debate, and I have to ask, does anyone really support him on this forum as their choice? He was so incoherent....

ETA: I guess I'm just wondering how anyone who pays attention could choose him as their frontrunner.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2019, 09:59:24 AM by Wolfpack Mustachian »

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2420
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1094 on: October 16, 2019, 09:19:55 AM »

Booker was his normal charming self, and Warren fended off the frequent attacks pretty well, but I think her continued refusal to lump in all expenses as "costs" is getting really old.

See, I think the media hammering on this one pointless question is the thing that is getting really old. The framing of the question is bullshit, and she is right to push back on it. She has stated multiple times that she will not sign a bill into law if it increases healthcare costs for the middle class. So letís move on to the 1000000 other important issues we have to discuss.

I also thought Klobuchar came off as trying way too hard so, itís all in the eye of the beholder I guess.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2548
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1095 on: October 16, 2019, 09:54:02 AM »

Booker was his normal charming self, and Warren fended off the frequent attacks pretty well, but I think her continued refusal to lump in all expenses as "costs" is getting really old.

See, I think the media hammering on this one pointless question is the thing that is getting really old. The framing of the question is bullshit, and she is right to push back on it. She has stated multiple times that she will not sign a bill into law if it increases healthcare costs for the middle class. So letís move on to the 1000000 other important issues we have to discuss.

I also thought Klobuchar came off as trying way too hard so, itís all in the eye of the beholder I guess.

It's not just the media.  It's the other candidates, too.  Last night Biden ("vague"), Buttigieg ("yes or no"), and Klobuchar ("invoice") all brought it up.  I conclude the other candidates think it is a salient point.  I think she needs to come up with a better response than the one she repeated in slightly varied forms multiple times in the debate.  Maybe with less "sound-bite" style debates, she'll have time to go into it more.

Of the 12, there are four I would prefer not to see become President.  As noted above, it's all in the eyes of the beholder, so I won't bother listing my particular four.  I think I have a good chance of being content with whomever is President next.

Other comments:

I did think Gabbard's strategy of calling on other candidates to agree with her (and Harris' similar thing with the Twitter thing, which I didn't hear but read about) doesn't work well for her.  She's better when she orates.  Her comments on abortion restrictions in the third trimester was an interesting choice.

I thought Klobuchar's decision to quote Trump's 2016 campaign slogan three times (or was it four?) in one of her answers - even though she referred to it negatively - was a bad strategic choice.

I'm not impressed with Steyer, and can't see how he gets the nomination, so I don't understand why he entered the race.

Biden is only occasionally incoherent, but I think that trait is going to wear on his campaign.

I liked Buttigieg's "courage" line, especially how he framed it in the after-debate discussion with CNN.  I didn't really get his repeated vision thing of "imagine the day after Trump's Presidency ends".

Booker's "happy warrior" thing worked more for me than it has in the past.  Maybe it seems like he's let go of his angry side even more.

I'm glad Sanders appears healthy.  I wish him well but somehow think that he's going to do the same thing he did in 2016 and hang around too long and cause problems for the eventual nominee - I don't think it will be him.

I still think it's sort of a Mexican standoff now until the caucuses start.  It's hard to see how it shifts from a two- or three-person race to include anyone else.  I don't think last night's debate really will shift the landscape much at all, other than that the pundits now seem to consider Warren a co-front-runner or maybe even the front-runner, instead of "second place and rising" with all the attacks on her from the other candidates.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2019, 10:42:30 AM by secondcor521 »

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2420
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1096 on: October 16, 2019, 10:06:14 AM »

Booker was his normal charming self, and Warren fended off the frequent attacks pretty well, but I think her continued refusal to lump in all expenses as "costs" is getting really old.

See, I think the media hammering on this one pointless question is the thing that is getting really old. The framing of the question is bullshit, and she is right to push back on it. She has stated multiple times that she will not sign a bill into law if it increases healthcare costs for the middle class. So letís move on to the 1000000 other important issues we have to discuss.

I also thought Klobuchar came off as trying way too hard so, itís all in the eye of the beholder I guess.

It's not just the media.  It's the other candidates, too.  Last night Biden ("vague") and Buttigieg ("yes or no") both brought it up.  I conclude the other candidates think it is a salient point.  I think she needs to come up with a better response than the one she repeated in slightly varied forms multiple times in the debate.  Maybe with less "sound-bite" style debates, she'll have time to go into it more.


The only reason the other candidates see it as a salient point is because it is just about the only thing they think they have to hammer her with. And in so doing, they reinforce the framing that taxes are a completely independent topic from health care costs, as though money is not a fungible thing in the budgets of most Americans. Whether taxes go up or not is truly irrelevant ó what is relevant is whether everyone is covered for everything they need, and what costs are incurred by users of that coverage. The tax question is completely the wrong frame to look at this through, and I for one appreciate Warrenís discipline in not ceding that framing.

Iíd prefer to see the media, and all the candidates, stop hammering on this poor dead horse, and dedicate at least one question to climate change. It would be more relevant to where we are at this point in history, and also more honest.

big_owl

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1097 on: October 16, 2019, 10:26:15 AM »
I never thought I'd say this but absent some economic calamity between now and next year I don't see how Trump doesn't just steamroll the democrats.  I'd practically sell my left nut to see someone like Jamie Dimon jump in at this point.  Warren, Bernie, Biden?  That's the best we can do?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 340
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1098 on: October 16, 2019, 11:01:37 AM »
I also had one more thought. Someone (can't remember who) commented about raising capital gains taxes back to 39%. Does anyone think this would legitimately happen? It would make a significant impact in FI for many of us, I'd imagine, if there was a flat 39% capital gains tax (assuming that was what was meant). Of course, there's a lot of play between our current situation where we can, what, get up a decent amount tax free if it's long term and a 39% overall tax rate. Any thoughts?

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 695
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1099 on: October 16, 2019, 11:22:56 AM »
...It would make a significant impact in FI for many of us, I'd imagine, if there was a flat 39% capital gains tax... Any thoughts?

401k/IRA withdrawals are taxed as ordinary income, Roth IRA and HSA withdrawals are generally not taxable, so we're talking about mostly after tax brokerage accounts. Not being FIRE or living off of my stash, I can't provide real world numbers, but my very rough back of the napkin assumption is that when I'm withdrawing, I expect no more than 50% of those withdrawals will be long term capital gains dollars, with the rest being just return of principal. So that cuts the effective tax rate in half, to 20% at most. Yeah, obviously it's more taxes than 0%, and still more than the current 15% rate above that limit (or effective rate in my rough estimate of up to 7.5%), but I don't think a proposal like this is necessarily damning of FIRE, especially given the flexibility most of us will have with multiple types of accounts allowing engineering of the tax bill from year to year, and if it is wrapped up in solving healthcare funding once and for all.

...I'd practically sell my left nut to see someone like Jamie Dimon jump in at this point...

Wot?? I'd like to this there's probably a constituency of like 2 people itching for Dimon to be president, and one of those two is him