Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 22379 times)

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
  • Age: 33
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #150 on: February 13, 2019, 09:12:18 AM »
At this point, I would actively vote against any candidate that supports the newly unveiled GND. I read through not just the ridiculous "fact sheet" but also the actual resolution itself and nope.

The resolution is almost childish in it's naivete.

While I agree with many of the goals, the resolution reads like it was written by some  idealistic/clueless, wide-eyed school kid with no experience and no grip on reality.

I know some of the more radical "progressive" Dems (Warren, Harris, Gillibrand, have come out in favor of it (did they actually read it?).  Others have dodged it.  And a couple (smartly) said they agreed with the ideals, but not the resolution as written.

I'm generally not a fan of Bloomberg (that "soda ban" thing in NYC was ridiculous), and he's "green," but I thought he had the best answer of any Dem (or potential Dem) candidate so far.  Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D) stressed that a Green New Deal should offer realistic solutions and not "things that are pie in the sky." 

If this thing does pass, though, it's only a matter of time before Nanny Bloomberg announces a ban on large slices "pie in the sky."

It's a non-binding resolution. It carries exactly as much practical weight as voting on the statement "Hey it would be nice if we could do something about this climate-change thing." Which is essentially what it is, just with specific ideas on what "do something" might mean.

I agree that it's naive, but only real practical problem with that is that it gives Republicans an easy excuse not to vote for it. So yes, it should be better, but there's no reason to deride the politicians who do vote for it. They are signalling their agreement with the "ideals", nothing more.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 09:31:15 AM by sherr »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #151 on: February 13, 2019, 09:25:11 AM »
^^^ This.

Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 941
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #152 on: February 13, 2019, 10:28:41 AM »
^^^ This.

Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

Kris, I think that's because there isn't much of a point to giving any more energy to a continual assessment of the GOP agenda. Trump identified that many people are unhappy with the state of the country, pointed to a few bogeymen, and has proceeded as a hybrid between a standard modern day republican (conservative nominations to the supreme court, lowering taxes, deficit spending) and an unfocused narcissist. Is the GOP going to come up with any proposals worth serious thought anytime soon?

If there is any proposal worth some critical thinking, it's the proposals coming from progressives. There is much benefit to be had from some rethinking of our approach to the environment, the economy, healthcare, and infrastructure.

The problem is that AOC and her partners are the de facto champion of these ideas, and they're creating a full sense of urgency with half baked solutions. I can't support someone who doesn't have good ideas just because they care about things that are important. People who might be sympathetic to intelligent approaches to addressing these problems will regard AOC the way we regard Trump.

After all, I'm also concerned about some of the problems (opiates, rural stagnation) that helped get Trump elected. But his half baked solutions and over the top rhetoric result in him receiving no support from me and others like me.





Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2158
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #153 on: February 13, 2019, 10:33:42 AM »
^^^ This.

Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

Kris, I think that's because there isn't much of a point to giving any more energy to a continual assessment of the GOP agenda. Trump identified that many people are unhappy with the state of the country, pointed to a few bogeymen, and has proceeded as a hybrid between a standard modern day republican (conservative nominations to the supreme court, lowering taxes, deficit spending) and an unfocused narcissist. Is the GOP going to come up with any proposals worth serious thought anytime soon?

If there is any proposal worth some critical thinking, it's the proposals coming from progressives. There is much benefit to be had from some rethinking of our approach to the environment, the economy, healthcare, and infrastructure.

The problem is that AOC and her partners are the de facto champion of these ideas, and they're creating a full sense of urgency with half baked solutions. I can't support someone who doesn't have good ideas just because they care about things that are important. People who might be sympathetic to intelligent approaches to addressing these problems will regard AOC the way we regard Trump.

After all, I'm also concerned about some of the problems (opiates, rural stagnation) that helped get Trump elected. But his half baked solutions and over the top rhetoric result in him receiving no support from me and others like me.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, staid, rational scientists don't get elected to political office. I would kill for some sensible, non-partisan leadership, but I'll never see it in my lifetime.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #154 on: February 13, 2019, 10:36:45 AM »
^^^ This.

Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

Kris, I think that's because there isn't much of a point to giving any more energy to a continual assessment of the GOP agenda. Trump identified that many people are unhappy with the state of the country, pointed to a few bogeymen, and has proceeded as a hybrid between a standard modern day republican (conservative nominations to the supreme court, lowering taxes, deficit spending) and an unfocused narcissist. Is the GOP going to come up with any proposals worth serious thought anytime soon?

If there is any proposal worth some critical thinking, it's the proposals coming from progressives. There is much benefit to be had from some rethinking of our approach to the environment, the economy, healthcare, and infrastructure.

The problem is that AOC and her partners are the de facto champion of these ideas, and they're creating a full sense of urgency with half baked solutions. I can't support someone who doesn't have good ideas just because they care about things that are important. People who might be sympathetic to intelligent approaches to addressing these problems will regard AOC the way we regard Trump.

After all, I'm also concerned about some of the problems (opiates, rural stagnation) that helped get Trump elected. But his half baked solutions and over the top rhetoric result in him receiving no support from me and others like me.

I can understand that.

The problem is, AOC and her partners are the ONLY ones trying to address these problems.

Nancy Pelosi mocks the "Green Dream" but the corporate-funded Democrats are too afraid to even talk about doing anything. They acknowledge that human-induced climate change exists, but they put nothing forward to do anything about it. Personally, I'll take a full sense of urgency over no sense of urgency at all. We're also seeing people actually start talking about universal health care as a serious subject for the first time, and that would never have happened if the progressives weren't unafraid to bring it up and risk being labeled "evil socialists."

Centrist Dems get next to nothing done. Bring on the left-wing crazies who at least force a dialog to start.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #155 on: February 13, 2019, 11:01:44 AM »
Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

This echoes: it's better to be "morally right" than being "factually correct".

No thank you. Putting less emphasis on what is factually correct is how we ended up with Trump.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2373
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #156 on: February 13, 2019, 11:04:43 AM »
I think when we dismiss AOCís proposals as half-baked and too idealistic, we are making a big mistake. No big program is fully baked on the day it is proposed. Did JFK know exactly how we were gonna get to the moon when he made it a goal? Does anyone have a fully baked solution to climate change and economic and environmental justice?

The point is that yes, this shit is urgent. To the point where CHILDREN are protesting the inaction of the adults in power. We canít wait to have the whole thing worked out before we start. I think the Green New Deal is the exact right proposal right now ó letís define what the issues are and what we want the solutions to look like once implemented, and then letís build it brick by brick.

I really appreciate how AOC defines solutions as well ó like, if we find a way for rich white people to survive climate change and no one else, well thatís not a good solution. If we move to more renewable power but Flint still doesnít have drinkable water, thatís also not a good solution. We need to include justice for all in our plans or else weíre not really solving anything.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #157 on: February 13, 2019, 11:21:05 AM »
Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

This echoes: it's better to be "morally right" than being "factually correct".

No thank you. Putting less emphasis on what is factually correct is how we ended up with Trump.

I see nothing factually incorrect in the GND.

Whether it's all the best idea or not is debatable. As in, it should be up for debate. Which is kind of the point of introducing it, no? To actually start discussing ways to deal with the problem?

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #158 on: February 13, 2019, 11:30:38 AM »
Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

This echoes: it's better to be "morally right" than being "factually correct".

No thank you. Putting less emphasis on what is factually correct is how we ended up with Trump.

I see nothing factually incorrect in the GND.

Whether it's all the best idea or not is debatable. As in, it should be up for debate. Which is kind of the point of introducing it, no? To actually start discussing ways to deal with the problem?

The fundamental assumptions incorporated in the GND are incorrect. Be it fossil fuel is only about transportation (it's not, you take petro chem away the society falls), renewables are viable at large scale, or the complete bs hiding behind the Trojan horse word "equity". All factually incorrect.

I wouldn't even say we should be debating if these are good ideas, rather, a more relevant debate would be if these people live in the same universe as the rest of us.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 11:33:42 AM by anisotropy »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #159 on: February 13, 2019, 11:38:07 AM »
Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

This echoes: it's better to be "morally right" than being "factually correct".

No thank you. Putting less emphasis on what is factually correct is how we ended up with Trump.

I see nothing factually incorrect in the GND.

Whether it's all the best idea or not is debatable. As in, it should be up for debate. Which is kind of the point of introducing it, no? To actually start discussing ways to deal with the problem?

The fundamental assumptions incorporated in the GND are incorrect. Be it fossil fuel is only about transportation (it's not, you take petro chem away the society falls), renewables are viable at large scale, or the complete bs hiding behind the Trojan horse word "equity". All factually incorrect.

I wouldn't even say we should be debating if these are good ideas, rather, a more relevant debate would be if these people live in the same universe as the rest of us.

Can you find me where it is in the GND that the assumption is that fossil fuel is only about transportation?

Also, as far as I can see, the word "equity" never appears in the GND. (Except for a reference to a study done by a group that has the word in its name.) So, I'm not really seeing what you're saying there.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #160 on: February 13, 2019, 12:04:30 PM »
Can you find me where it is in the GND that the assumption is that fossil fuel is only about transportation?

Also, as far as I can see, the word "equity" never appears in the GND. (Except for a reference to a study done by a group that has the word in its name.) So, I'm not really seeing what you're saying there.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

1E  "to promote justice and equity by stopping current..." Not to mention another Trojan horse word "inclusion" that's peppered throughout.

2H  "overhauling transportation systems in the United States..."

Not sure how you missed these? Are we living in the same universe? jk

The fact the resolution was so focused on "transportation" and doesn't even touch on the far-reaching impacts of petro chem suggests to me these people have no clue just how much of a role fossil fuel plays in our everyday life.

I used to know some "smart" folks (they gone now) who thought electricity came out of the wall sockets, I think the GND is meant for these folks.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 12:06:12 PM by anisotropy »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #161 on: February 13, 2019, 12:09:13 PM »
Can you find me where it is in the GND that the assumption is that fossil fuel is only about transportation?

Also, as far as I can see, the word "equity" never appears in the GND. (Except for a reference to a study done by a group that has the word in its name.) So, I'm not really seeing what you're saying there.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

1E  "to promote justice and equity by stopping current..."

2H  "overhauling transportation systems in the United States..."

Not sure how you missed these? Are we living in the same universe? jk

The fact the resolution was so focused on "transportation" and doesn't even touch on the far-reaching impacts of petro chem suggests to me these people have no clue just how much of a role fossil fuel plays in our everyday life.

I used to know some "smart" folks (they gone now) who thought electricity came out of the wall sockets, I think the GND is meant for these folks.

Huh. Not sure how my search missed that.

So you're saying you don't think there are vulnerable communities who are and will continue to be disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change? Or you think there are, but you don't think we should address it?

I don't really see how saying transportation systems in the US need to be overhauled is the same as saying that that's the only petrochemicals issue, though.

(Note: I don't want to derail this thread, which is about 2020 POTUS candidates. So maybe a new thread about the GND is a good idea. I'm not gonna start it, but maybe someone else would like to.)

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
  • Age: 33
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #162 on: February 13, 2019, 12:17:38 PM »
Can you find me where it is in the GND that the assumption is that fossil fuel is only about transportation?

Also, as far as I can see, the word "equity" never appears in the GND. (Except for a reference to a study done by a group that has the word in its name.) So, I'm not really seeing what you're saying there.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

1E  "to promote justice and equity by stopping current..." Not to mention another Trojan horse word "inclusion" that's peppered throughout.

2H  "overhauling transportation systems in the United States..."

Not sure how you missed these? Are we living in the same universe? jk

The fact the resolution was so focused on "transportation" and doesn't even touch on the far-reaching impacts of petro chem suggests to me these people have no clue just how much of a role fossil fuel plays in our everyday life.

I used to know some "smart" folks (they gone now) who thought electricity came out of the wall sockets, I think the GND is meant for these folks.

No comment on the "trojan words", but the fossil fuel references are very clearly not solely linked to transportation.

2B:
Quote
repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, includingó

(i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible;

2C
Quote
Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources

2F
Quote
spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #163 on: February 13, 2019, 12:22:57 PM »
Maybe like Kris said a new thread on gnd would be warranted. Too bad the next leg of my post-fire travels is set to begin soon and I will be away again.

andy85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Louisville, KY
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #164 on: February 13, 2019, 12:36:54 PM »
Andrew Yang was on the Joe Rogan podcast yesterday. He is running on a platform of Universal Basic Income. Obviously a long shot, to say the least, but I really liked him. I don't consider myself a Dem and don't agree with a lot of his policies, but he seems like a real genuine guy. His website also has an insane amount of policy positions on it...maybe like 75 positions whereas I feel like other candidates' seem to have like a dozen positions listed at max.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8
https://www.yang2020.com/

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #165 on: February 13, 2019, 01:59:49 PM »
Sweet Jesus God!  If you want policy, here's your guy:  https://www.yang2020.com/policies/

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #166 on: February 13, 2019, 02:05:22 PM »
Now if only the Republicans would nominate a woman named "Yin."

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #167 on: February 13, 2019, 04:45:09 PM »
So, Governor Weld of Massachusetts may run for the Republican nomination.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1435
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #168 on: February 13, 2019, 07:21:11 PM »
So, Governor Weld of Massachusetts may run for the Republican nomination.

OMG, he's still kicking around??

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 941
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #169 on: February 14, 2019, 09:05:31 AM »
He must be emboldened after his strong showing as VP on the libertarian ticket ;)

Must have been awkward to have your partner tank interviews like that.

After that Weld started low key campaigning for Hillary. Basically equivocating in interviews when they asked him about playing spoiler. He would more or less say his number one priority is making sure Trump didn't get elected.

Given that, I think he'd be happy to beat Trump up a bit from the R side in the primaries. But I'm not sure Weld has enough money or influence to be recognized as a challenger by the GOP).

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 944
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #170 on: February 14, 2019, 09:28:40 AM »
Sweet Jesus God!  If you want policy, here's your guy:  https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
His policies read to me as the opinions from another well off kid who grew up to be a rich business man who has never served in government.

UBI for every single American over 18? 6 billion for failing malls across America? Secure the border from all them illegals, ignore those that come here legally and stay beyond their visas? Incorporate a White House Psychologist Corp? All laws should have a sunset period? (Like which ones, specifically, does he have a problem with?) Protect the children from smartphones?

Meh, I'm not so impressed. I think there are already better candidates in the line up.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #171 on: February 15, 2019, 10:10:24 AM »
I was thinking about all of the presidential candidates in my lifetime (since 1976) and without an exception, and regardless of political party, character or policy ideas, the most charismatic candidate won.

Ford vs Carter:  A stick is more charismatic than Ford
Reagan vs Carter:  Reagan by a mile
Reagan vs Mondale: Ditto
Bush vs Dukakis:  Bush was definitely not charismatic but Dukakis was worse
Bush vs Clinton:  Clinton for sure
Clinton vs. Dole: Ditto
Bush vs Gore:  Bush is only moderately charismatic but Gore was definitely not at all
Bush vs Kerry:  Similar, although this one is almost a toss up
Obama vs McCain: Obama, although McCain wasnít terrible
Obama vs Romney:  Romney was a stiff
Trump vs Clinton:  Trump is very charismatic to certain people, ex reality actor, years in the public eye etc....  Clinton was never very comfortable on camera

My point is that only a very charismatic person is going to excite the Democrats enough to beat trump.  So far, the best bets are probably Bernie or Harris.  Bernie might be the safer bet in that the real left wing wonít vote for a centrist candidate, but the centrist democrats will vote for whoever isnít Trump.  I personally think Sanders will be a terrible president though, but who knows.

After 2016, who knows anything anymore.

At first these conclusions seem appealing, but consider:

in 1976, Reagan lost a GOP primary to Ford;
in 1988, Dukakis beat Jesse Jackson in the Democratic primary; Joe Biden also ran in that primary, and many people thought he would have challenged Clinton well in 2016;
in 2000, Gore--who was less charismatic--won the popular vote outright;
in 2016, Trump--despite being more charismatic than Romney--won about the same number of votes nation-wide;

I think it's very tempting to look at the winners and say they were charismatic, but really only Reagan and Pres. Clinton were uniquely talented. And if Gore had won in 2000, W. looks forward to a retirement of dancing with the stars and being McCain's secretary of energy, and we're all wondering why it seems like only nerds can win the White House.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #172 on: February 19, 2019, 09:36:27 AM »
Welp, Bernie Sanders has officially thrown his hat in the ring to shoot for the Democratic Party nomination.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2158
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #173 on: March 01, 2019, 06:03:42 AM »
And Jay Inslee is in.

I've never heard of him, but he comes in with political gravitas as a two-term governor of a major state, and it appears he intends to make climate change the central issue of his campaign. That immediately makes him a front-runner for my vote in the primary, though I doubt it's salient enough for most Americans to push him over the line for the nomination. I'll have to do some more research on this guy, but frankly it's been disappointing to me how little attention climate change gets compared to topics like social justice and healthcare (which, don't get me wrong, those are important issues, but we're running out of time to do anything meaningful about the biggest issue facing our planet and our species).

soccerluvof4

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4846
  • Location: Artic Midwest
  • Retired at 50
    • My Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #174 on: March 01, 2019, 06:26:36 AM »
I was thinking about all of the presidential candidates in my lifetime (since 1976) and without an exception, and regardless of political party, character or policy ideas, the most charismatic candidate won.

Ford vs Carter:  A stick is more charismatic than Ford
Reagan vs Carter:  Reagan by a mile
Reagan vs Mondale: Ditto
Bush vs Dukakis:  Bush was definitely not charismatic but Dukakis was worse
Bush vs Clinton:  Clinton for sure
Clinton vs. Dole: Ditto
Bush vs Gore:  Bush is only moderately charismatic but Gore was definitely not at all
Bush vs Kerry:  Similar, although this one is almost a toss up
Obama vs McCain: Obama, although McCain wasnít terrible
Obama vs Romney:  Romney was a stiff
Trump vs Clinton:  Trump is very charismatic to certain people, ex reality actor, years in the public eye etc....  Clinton was never very comfortable on camera

My point is that only a very charismatic person is going to excite the Democrats enough to beat trump.  So far, the best bets are probably Bernie or Harris.  Bernie might be the safer bet in that the real left wing wonít vote for a centrist candidate, but the centrist democrats will vote for whoever isnít Trump.  I personally think Sanders will be a terrible president though, but who knows.

After 2016, who knows anything anymore.

At first these conclusions seem appealing, but consider:

in 1976, Reagan lost a GOP primary to Ford;
in 1988, Dukakis beat Jesse Jackson in the Democratic primary; Joe Biden also ran in that primary, and many people thought he would have challenged Clinton well in 2016;
in 2000, Gore--who was less charismatic--won the popular vote outright;
in 2016, Trump--despite being more charismatic than Romney--won about the same number of votes nation-wide;

I think it's very tempting to look at the winners and say they were charismatic, but really only Reagan and Pres. Clinton were uniquely talented. And if Gore had won in 2000, W. looks forward to a retirement of dancing with the stars and being McCain's secretary of energy, and we're all wondering why it seems like only nerds can win the White House.



I would definitely agree that there when it comes to being Charismatic Reagan, Clinton , Obama and Trump would be the four. While that might of played a roll it was different reasons at the time for each. But also agree not all Charisma is good depending on the mood of the people.

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Location: Roanoke, VA
    • Photography by Rich Davis
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #175 on: March 01, 2019, 09:35:11 AM »
Welp, Bernie Sanders has officially thrown his hat in the ring to shoot for the Democratic Party nomination.
Gotta get some popcorn.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #176 on: March 01, 2019, 09:58:13 AM »
I suspect Inslee will mostly serve as an issue candidate. Given that climate change is the issue, if he can force that to be a prt of the discussion then I think that he will be useful. He tends to be pretty measured and even when speaking, so I just don't see him firing up the voters to get to the polls. He has generally been a good governor, but his AG (Ferguson) and prior to governors (Gregoire and Locke)  I think I liked a bit better.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2158
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #177 on: March 01, 2019, 12:20:14 PM »
I suspect Inslee will mostly serve as an issue candidate. Given that climate change is the issue, if he can force that to be a prt of the discussion then I think that he will be useful. He tends to be pretty measured and even when speaking, so I just don't see him firing up the voters to get to the polls. He has generally been a good governor, but his AG (Ferguson) and prior to governors (Gregoire and Locke)  I think I liked a bit better.

Fine with me. Someone needs to be beating the drum. I don't expect him to win, but I do want him to make some noise and drive the conversation.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #178 on: March 01, 2019, 04:30:15 PM »
Apparently Governor Hickenlooper (sp?) of Washington State is going to formally throw his hat in the ring next week.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #179 on: March 01, 2019, 04:44:24 PM »
Apparently Governor Hickenlooper (sp?) of Washington State is going to formally throw his hat in the ring next week.

Both halves of that are right, sort of -

John Hickenlooper of Colorado is expected to announce & Jay Inslee of Washington State already has.




secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #180 on: March 01, 2019, 04:53:49 PM »
Apparently Governor Hickenlooper (sp?) of Washington State is going to formally throw his hat in the ring next week.

Both halves of that are right, sort of -

John Hickenlooper of Colorado is expected to announce & Jay Inslee of Washington State already has.

Thanks for the correction! : - )

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #181 on: March 02, 2019, 03:00:58 AM »
I suspect Inslee will mostly serve as an issue candidate. Given that climate change is the issue, if he can force that to be a prt of the discussion then I think that he will be useful. He tends to be pretty measured and even when speaking, so I just don't see him firing up the voters to get to the polls. He has generally been a good governor, but his AG (Ferguson) and prior to governors (Gregoire and Locke)  I think I liked a bit better.

I have a soft spot for Inslee since he was my congressman when I lived in the burbs. I also enjoy his manner of speaking; it's kind of hard to explain, but he comes off to me as genuine and sharp, though maybe not inspiring (so I guess we agree there). Hopefully he'll make a good impression and end up in the cabinet.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1979
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #182 on: March 03, 2019, 06:15:42 PM »
Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will also be helped by state wide races. For example, if Stacey Abrams runs for Senate in Georgia in 2020, she might actually win this time around, and thereby help propel a Democratic win for president in that state.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2158
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #183 on: March 03, 2019, 06:28:34 PM »
Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will also be helped by state wide races. For example, if Stacey Abrams runs for Senate in Georgia in 2020, she might actually win this time around, and thereby help propel a Democratic win for president in that state.

I really hope she runs for Senate. I was pretty bummed when she lost the governorship, especially given how close it was.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #184 on: March 03, 2019, 08:13:01 PM »
Watched Bernie's rally in Brooklyn and then again in Chicago tonight. He is on fire early. He got my $27 tonight.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 900
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #185 on: March 03, 2019, 08:47:21 PM »
Until I see a Democratic candidate who is interested in encouraging participation in capitalism by ordinary people instead of promising everybody to put their retirements, healthcare, and futures in the hands of the government -- a government that is currently run by Donald Trump and at one time was run by George W. Bush -- I'm going to sit things out this time around. Sorry.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #186 on: March 04, 2019, 09:25:02 AM »
Until I see a Democratic candidate who is interested in encouraging participation in capitalism by ordinary people instead of promising everybody to put their retirements, healthcare, and futures in the hands of the government -- a government that is currently run by Donald Trump and at one time was run by George W. Bush -- I'm going to sit things out this time around. Sorry.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. What policies and approach would you like to see?

and @Cressida I also have a soft spot for Inslee. He is the type of person I would like to see in the Oval office.  I just wonder about his ability to generate excitement.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #187 on: March 04, 2019, 09:31:12 AM »
Looks like Hickenlooper is in.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1979
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #188 on: March 04, 2019, 12:17:35 PM »
Until I see a Democratic candidate who is interested in encouraging participation in capitalism by ordinary people instead of promising everybody to put their retirements, healthcare, and futures in the hands of the government -- a government that is currently run by Donald Trump and at one time was run by George W. Bush -- I'm going to sit things out this time around. Sorry.

You can thank Obama for trying to automatically enroll workers in 401k plans, in which they have to opt out in order to no longer contribute.

I'd say the Democrats by and large encourage participation in the stock market.
You can thank the Republicans in the Congress for not taking it up.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/22/require-automatic-enrollment-in-ira-plans/

Moreover, it was the Democrats who created the CFPB, which regulate banks on behalf of consumers.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 12:20:37 PM by DavidAnnArbor »

the_fixer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #189 on: March 04, 2019, 09:35:31 PM »
Looks like Hickenlooper is in.
Very happy about this!

As a resident of Colorado I think he has done a great job.

My wife had the chance to ride a bike with him in an organized charity event here in Colorado and thinks highly of him.

We sat next to his speech writer on a plane a few months ago and we're really excited to discuss the possibilities of him running.

We even had a good chuckle when I recommended that he runs on an abolish the time change platform as almost everyone can get behind that :)



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #190 on: March 07, 2019, 02:28:51 PM »
Sherrod Brown is out.

Biden is leaning in.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #191 on: March 07, 2019, 02:37:47 PM »
It sounds crazy saying this so early, but IF Biden jumps in, this could become a three-way race with Biden, Bernie, and either Harris/Beto (if he jumps in)...

because of money!

I read where Dem experts say that it will likely take $50-$100M for a Dem candidate to get to the Iowa caucuses.

Who besides Biden, Bernie, and maybe Harris or Beto, can realistically raise that kind of money, especially in such a crowded field where donors are spreading themselves thin?

And it looks like the first Dem presidential debates will be held in June, maybe over 2 nights because of the crowded field. I guess someone could catch fire during the debate. The lower-tier people are going to have to come out swinging or the money edge will be too much.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 02:41:36 PM by Nick_Miller »

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2394
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #192 on: March 08, 2019, 09:55:03 AM »
Warren can raise that. Easily.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #193 on: March 08, 2019, 10:50:18 AM »
You're right. She has a good amount of money left over from Senate run. I just checked.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #194 on: March 08, 2019, 11:07:17 AM »
Sweet Jesus God!  If you want policy, here's your guy:  https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
So I finally got around to listening to the Freakanomics podcast with Yang. He seems like a guy that it would be fun to have a beer or two with while discussing economic philosophies, but goodness, he's far too direct to make it as a politician.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Location: Southern California
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #195 on: March 08, 2019, 11:23:39 AM »
Dang, bummed about Brown being out. Surprised about Bloomberg.

I wonder what's holding Biden back from announcing. Afraid of Bernie? Bern's raking in money and doing his thing at rallies, better announce go or no go before it's too late. Democratic party once again is jacking Bern around, once again for the fact that he's not actually a Democrat. I have a feeling 2016 is coming back to haunt Dems if Biden waits too long to go for it. Bernie's got the popular spotlight now, he's looking more and more like the lead candidate.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #196 on: March 08, 2019, 03:29:38 PM »
Dang, bummed about Brown being out. Surprised about Bloomberg.

I wonder what's holding Biden back from announcing. Afraid of Bernie? Bern's raking in money and doing his thing at rallies, better announce go or no go before it's too late. Democratic party once again is jacking Bern around, once again for the fact that he's not actually a Democrat. I have a feeling 2016 is coming back to haunt Dems if Biden waits too long to go for it. Bernie's got the popular spotlight now, he's looking more and more like the lead candidate.

I kinda think Biden has missed the sweet spot to jump in.  You can wait a little bit when your name is being mentioned (and you're a former VP and Senator) as a potential candidate, but too long and I think even people who want him to run might get frustrated with what could be perceived as an unnecessary delay.

He's been serving for a long time and has had some tough things in his life.  So maybe he's just tired.  I would be.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #197 on: March 08, 2019, 04:44:05 PM »
I thought this was a decent article reviewing the current candidate list:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ranking-top-democratic-presidential-candidates-231734438.html

There are 14 people ranked in the article, although a few (Biden and O'Rourke and #10 Bullock) are not official candidates yet as far as I know.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Location: Southern California
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #198 on: March 08, 2019, 06:50:27 PM »
Good rundown, funny article though. Says Biden's supposed to announce in February and notes Bloomberg and Brown just dropped out. Checked out comments and yep-3 months old. Must be a "continuously running" article or something.

Ynari

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 472
  • Age: 26
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #199 on: March 09, 2019, 07:07:10 AM »
Sweet Jesus God!  If you want policy, here's your guy:  https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
So I finally got around to listening to the Freakanomics podcast with Yang. He seems like a guy that it would be fun to have a beer or two with while discussing economic philosophies, but goodness, he's far too direct to make it as a politician.

Agree. I see Yang's best case scenario as a "shift the conversation" candidate - which I'm starting to think is just as important as who actually gets the nomination. The average of the whole field will influence the final candidate's positions, what they can/will campaign on, what "the people" expect, etc. If Yang can pull better the "Freedom dividend" into public consensus, and drive more conscious thought about responses to automation, I'm all for it.