Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 235612 times)

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2375
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2050 on: February 05, 2020, 10:43:28 AM »
"An intentionally grating slur."  Good heavens people.  Take yourselves a little less seriously.

Quote
At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2019, Trump stated he liked to say, "the 'Democrat Party,' because it doesnít sound good. But that's all the more reason I use it, because it doesn't."

It is an intentionally grating slur, and Republicans openly state that that's the reason they use it. It's not my fault that Republican civility has sunk this low. And I say this as an Independent (although perhaps I'm an IINO at this point since I can't imagine voting for a Republican in the foreseeable future).

It is intentionally grating if that is the intent of the person saying it. Clearly that was not Wolfpack's intention.

Sounds like you're right about some people using it to provoke others, but I've never heard of such a thing until today.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2051 on: February 05, 2020, 11:31:40 AM »
I basically posted that I thought the Russia story was way overblown (i.e., based on on what Russia spent, and how many posts they made, it was a blip in the radar of social media, and thus we lacked evidence that it substantially affected the election).  I also said that continually referencing RUSSIA to dismiss legitimate concerns is modern day Red Scare/McCarythyism: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/so-let's-speculate-about-the-future-of-a-full-trump-presidency/msg2333178/#msg2333178

I was met with the usual from the folks on this forum -- dissecting my posts into fifteen pieces to effectivelly call me stupid, a bunch of socratic method questions that implied I really haven't thought this out, etc.  On top of that, several basically accused me (and other posters doubting the Russia story) of being trolls themselves:

Quote
Imagine the disruption to this forum if even 50 coordinated trolls showed up.

*** Next Post ***

If JLee? :(

Noticeable difference in Off-Topic since... maybe 2-3 months ago?

THEY ARE ALREADY HERE!

*** Next Post ***

Yep, they are here.

I know the mods had to deal with them on an anti-vax thread or two already.

Of course, Sol had to dial it up to 11, completely misrepresenting everything I was saying to claim "Russia was innocent" (something I never came remotely close to saying):

Quote
Just as an example, there are precisely TWO posters in this thread who are saying "Russia is innocent!  Russia did nothing wrong!"  They are a tiny fraction of the the total users, or the total posts, but their voices absolutely have an impact.  You're bringing people around to the opinion that Russia wants us to have, with your tiny fraction of our total posts, because you're not throwing out random posts but rather targeting a specific discussion about Russian interference, to people who are reading along because they want to learn about it and form an opinion, and you are giving them one that Russia supports but the United States intelligence services do not.  The total number of posts on the forum does not matter, in determining how much impact you can have for your few hours of typing away from Moscow.  You have absolutely swayed this discussion, literally with just two accounts, to exonerate the Russians for their interference in the US election, in less than 48 hours.  You may have already convinced hundreds of US citizens, lurking in this thread, that Russia is innocent.  See how easy it is, when you target your messaging?

Take it over and over, and while not being directly called a Russian operative, the substance of my posts was being dismissed because RUSSIA.  Of course.

So I don't think Daisy's interpretation was wrong at all.  Daisy was effectively being called a dumbass, of not checking her information carefully enough, of not cross-referencing Russia troll farm social media posts, and hey, if the troll farms are parroting this, it must be false, or it must not be a big deal, or even if it is a big deal, RUSSIA wants us to be mad about it, so don't worry about it, it's fine.

What nonsense.  This was the lead story in NYT, WaPo, Politico, The Atlantic, etc.  And Pod Save America did an entire podcast on it that I listened to on my walk this morning.

***

You know what IS funny?  The usual liberal posters in this thread, who act as if they are the most well informed of anyone who's ever lived, are just parroting the Democratic Party talking points.  Look at AOC, Bernie, etc. -- "Hey, the Iowa thing is being overblown, calm down, let's wait for results, it's not a big deal." 

They have done all the Google searches and read all the articles to justify their position, and when you disagree with that -- citing WaPo, NYT, The New Yorker -- out come the links and the pitchforks.

The dismissal of any disagreement is just modern day McCarthyism.  The far left (is that a slur too?) loves it because it helps them ignore what's in front of their face -- Trump is going to win in 2020 because they can't shut the hell up about Russia/impeachment.



The Mueller Report later confirmed that you were incorrect in your assumption that the Russian election interference was overblown.

It clearly stated that Russia both "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and that doing this "violated U.S. criminal law".

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html


So . . . it turns out that the concerns you were dismissing had a solid basis in fact and reality, and were not in fact 'modern day McCarthyism'.  Have you changed your opinion since finding out that you were wrong?

If you are rehashing Russiagate, please take it to the thread. No one wanted to discuss the FISA report about Carter Page for some bizarre reason.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2052 on: February 05, 2020, 11:44:25 AM »
The Mueller Report later confirmed that you were incorrect in your assumption that the Russian election interference was overblown.

It clearly stated that Russia both "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and that doing this "violated U.S. criminal law".

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html


So . . . it turns out that the concerns you were dismissing had a solid basis in fact and reality, and were not in fact 'modern day McCarthyism'.  Have you changed your opinion since finding out that you were wrong?

I could probably FIRE if I had a buck for every time you posted a single sentence from a 448 page report to justify your broad conclusions.

But, seeking a little more nuance, and not wanting to engage (again) in long posts about the effects of Russia's social media campaigns, I will leave this article here, which pretty closely aligns with my reasoning and how I feel.  Note this is from The Nation, the longest running progressive magazine in the United States (I think), and the author is Aaron Matz, a progressive activist who is very involved in voter turnout efforts.

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/russiagate-elections-interference/

ETA: I'll also add this article, which also adds another dimension to how I feel -- that the most loyal Democrats are the ones who most buy the Russia story, because it makes them feel better:

https://www.fpri.org/article/2019/05/perceptions-of-russian-interference-in-u-s-elections-matter-as-much-as-the-actual-involvement/

Quote
More educated and politically sophisticated individuals are the most adept at internalizing party cues, making them more sure of their beliefs. Social psychology research show us that people tend to underestimate the influence of mass communication on themselves and overestimate it on others, especially the impact of harmful media on disliked outgroups. Most people believe they are too smart to be influenced by foreign propaganda, but they assume that othersóespecially members of the opposite partyóare less resistant to threatening persuasive appeals.

At first glance, this may seem like a reasonable inference since Russian propaganda reached over 126 million people on Facebook alone. However, over that same period, Americans received 33 trillion items in their newsfeeds. Most Americans had minimal contact with Russian propaganda, but Democrats tend to believe that Russian propaganda influenced how other citizens voted. In sum, our hyper-partisan media environment has divided Americans about the influence of foreign governments on national elections, and those who follow politics the most are the most divided.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2020, 11:47:04 AM by ReadySetMillionaire »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15253
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2053 on: February 05, 2020, 11:56:01 AM »
1.  If you feel that I've mischaracterized the conclusions of the report, please feel free to point out the areas you take issue with.
2.  The article you linked - https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/russiagate-elections-interference/ - was written from ignorance, well before the facts of the Mueller investigation had been made public.
3.  I'm not a Democrat.
4.  None of the opinion pieces you posted refutes in any way the facts uncovered by the Mueller report.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2375
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2054 on: February 05, 2020, 11:58:44 AM »
1.  If you feel that I've mischaracterized the conclusions of the report, please feel free to point out the areas you take issue with....

...in the United States of Russia thread.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15253
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2055 on: February 05, 2020, 11:59:50 AM »
1.  If you feel that I've mischaracterized the conclusions of the report, please feel free to point out the areas you take issue with....

...in the United States of Russia thread.

Agreed.  That would be a better place for it.

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2056 on: February 05, 2020, 12:33:13 PM »
"An intentionally grating slur."  Good heavens people.  Take yourselves a little less seriously.

Quote
At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2019, Trump stated he liked to say, "the 'Democrat Party,' because it doesnít sound good. But that's all the more reason I use it, because it doesn't."

It is an intentionally grating slur, and Republicans openly state that that's the reason they use it. It's not my fault that Republican civility has sunk this low. And I say this as an Independent (although perhaps I'm an IINO at this point since I can't imagine voting for a Republican in the foreseeable future).

It is intentionally grating if that is the intent of the person saying it. Clearly that was not Wolfpack's intention.

Sounds like you're right about some people using it to provoke others, but I've never heard of such a thing until today.

I'm not positive there is such a thing as clear intentions when using a communication medium like an internet message board.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2375
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2057 on: February 05, 2020, 12:51:47 PM »
"An intentionally grating slur."  Good heavens people.  Take yourselves a little less seriously.

Quote
At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2019, Trump stated he liked to say, "the 'Democrat Party,' because it doesnít sound good. But that's all the more reason I use it, because it doesn't."

It is an intentionally grating slur, and Republicans openly state that that's the reason they use it. It's not my fault that Republican civility has sunk this low. And I say this as an Independent (although perhaps I'm an IINO at this point since I can't imagine voting for a Republican in the foreseeable future).

It is intentionally grating if that is the intent of the person saying it. Clearly that was not Wolfpack's intention.

Sounds like you're right about some people using it to provoke others, but I've never heard of such a thing until today.

I'm not positive there is such a thing as clear intentions when using a communication medium like an internet message board.

Generally I would agree and that's why I try to give the benefit of doubt and assume positive intentions.

However, in this case the poster indicated after the fact that they didn't realize their wording could even be interpreted as a slur.

ETA: The US has really weird party names. How do "Democratic" and "Republican" relate to the beliefs of the corresponding parties?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2020, 12:55:07 PM by Davnasty »

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2058 on: February 05, 2020, 01:10:42 PM »
It is intentionally grating if that is the intent of the person saying it. Clearly that was not Wolfpack's intention.

Sounds like you're right about some people using it to provoke others, but I've never heard of such a thing until today.

I'm not positive there is such a thing as clear intentions when using a communication medium like an internet message board.

Generally I would agree and that's why I try to give the benefit of doubt and assume positive intentions.

However, in this case the poster indicated after the fact that they didn't realize their wording could even be interpreted as a slur.

I was claiming that the slur itself is "intentionally grating", as evidenced by the Trump quotes and the myriad of other quotes in the wikipedia article; not that Wolfpack's usage of it was as an intentional slur.

ETA: The US has really weird party names. How do "Democratic" and "Republican" relate to the beliefs of the corresponding parties?

Well oddly the "Democratic" party traces its roots to the "Democratic-Republican" party of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. That bit at least makes some sense, the US is after all a Democratic Republic.

But then the name was shortened to just "Democratic", eventually the "Grand Old Party" (which was brand new at the time and younger than it's main opponent) invented itself and took the "Republican" part. Clear as mud!

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2059 on: February 05, 2020, 01:21:24 PM »

Yep.  You can't have a different opinion about Kavanaugh, Russia, or impeachment.  It's all just sooooo obvious if you just know the facts.  Not those inconvenient facts that are propped up by Russia troll farms.  The REAL facts.

Now by REAL facts do we mean those as verified true by the NYT, Washington Post, OANN, or Fox News? Because we know that those organizations never, ever shade the facts for partisan advantage?

Old Russian bot proverb: ďDonít trust any facts you didnít make up yourself!Ē

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2060 on: February 05, 2020, 01:44:09 PM »

Take it over and over, and while not being directly called a Russian operative, the substance of my posts was being dismissed because RUSSIA.  Of course.

So I don't think Daisy's interpretation was wrong at all.  Daisy was effectively being called a dumbass, of not checking her information carefully enough, of not cross-referencing Russia troll farm social media posts, and hey, if the troll farms are parroting this, it must be false, or it must not be a big deal, or even if it is a big deal, RUSSIA wants us to be mad about it, so don't worry about it, it's fine.

What nonsense.  This was the lead story in NYT, WaPo, Politico, The Atlantic, etc.  And Pod Save America did an entire podcast on it that I listened to on my walk this morning.

***

You know what IS funny?  The usual liberal posters in this thread, who act as if they are the most well informed of anyone who's ever lived, are just parroting the Democratic Party talking points.  Look at AOC, Bernie, etc. -- "Hey, the Iowa thing is being overblown, calm down, let's wait for results, it's not a big deal." 

They have done all the Google searches and read all the articles to justify their position, and when you disagree with that -- citing WaPo, NYT, The New Yorker -- out come the links and the pitchforks.

The dismissal of any disagreement is just modern day McCarthyism.  The far left (is that a slur too?) loves it because it helps them ignore what's in front of their face -- Trump is going to win in 2020 because they can't shut the hell up about Russia/impeachment.

Erudite post, comrade. Thanks for typing it out.

As you may have noticed, Iíve decided that I might as well just come out and admit that Iím a Russian bot. Saves time and keystrokes.

For the glory of Mother Russia!


sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2061 on: February 05, 2020, 02:00:28 PM »
Erudite post, comrade. Thanks for typing it out.

As you may have noticed, Iíve decided that I might as well just come out and admit that Iím a Russian bot. Saves time and keystrokes.

For the glory of Mother Russia!

You may not be a bot, but you sure are acting a lot like a troll.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2062 on: February 05, 2020, 02:16:14 PM »
Erudite post, comrade. Thanks for typing it out.

As you may have noticed, Iíve decided that I might as well just come out and admit that Iím a Russian bot. Saves time and keystrokes.

For the glory of Mother Russia!

You may not be a bot, but you sure are acting a lot like a troll.

I was wondering when I would be accused of that. So now Iím a troll. Give it a week. I pretty much expect to be IDíd as one of the shooters on the grassy knoll.

You might want to read the quote from John Stepek below and think about it.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4381
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2063 on: February 05, 2020, 02:23:37 PM »

Yep.  You can't have a different opinion about Kavanaugh, Russia, or impeachment.  It's all just sooooo obvious if you just know the facts.  Not those inconvenient facts that are propped up by Russia troll farms.  The REAL facts.

Now by REAL facts do we mean those as verified true by the NYT, Washington Post, OANN, or Fox News? Because we know that those organizations never, ever shade the facts for partisan advantage?

No, we mean the ones from reddit and thedonald.win and breitbart.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2064 on: February 05, 2020, 02:36:02 PM »
You may not be a bot, but you sure are acting a lot like a troll.

I was wondering when I would be accused of that. So now Iím a troll. Give it a week. I pretty much expect to be IDíd as one of the shooters on the grassy knoll.

You might want to read the quote from John Stepek below and think about it.

You'll note that I'm not addressing the [in]correctness of your opinions, merely your behavior. I'm "accusing" you of acting like a troll because that's how you're acting.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2065 on: February 05, 2020, 02:54:10 PM »
You may not be a bot, but you sure are acting a lot like a troll.

I was wondering when I would be accused of that. So now Iím a troll. Give it a week. I pretty much expect to be IDíd as one of the shooters on the grassy knoll.

You might want to read the quote from John Stepek below and think about it.

You'll note that I'm not addressing the [in]correctness of your opinions, merely your behavior. I'm "accusing" you of acting like a troll because that's how you're acting.

Put me in the camp of @Buffaloski Boris, Russian Bot exaggerating to make a point, not acting like a troll.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2066 on: February 05, 2020, 05:29:01 PM »

You'll note that I'm not addressing the [in]correctness of your opinions, merely your behavior. I'm "accusing" you of acting like a troll because that's how you're acting.

Thank you for the note and your views.  I will think about them.  No, really. I do think about what people say. Even if I disagree. It's a bad habit.     

Now that you've had your say, I'm going tell you what I think.  I've been at MMM for what 8-9 months now? And have generally avoided the off topic threads.  Mostly because when it comes down to it, I'm emphatically apolitical.  I'm not registered to vote, I don't plan to vote, I believe both the factions suck (to put it most kindly), and I view politics as counterproductive.  My political party? None of the above- conscientious objector.     

I've noticed over time that these political threads are posted by about 30-50 people.  Almost all left of center.  Fair enough, the vibe of MMM is left wing.  Live and let live.  But then I started noticing that these threads had almost no real ideological diversity.  I mean, you would expect at least a few right wingers to put in an occasional comment and spice things up and start a polite debate. But not really.  And then I noticed the why. It seems that when someone who has an alternate view has the temerity to chime in, they get accused of being a troll or a Russian bot or some such.  But they're not accused directly.  It's an insinuation game.  But the effect is the same.  The person with the differing opinion gets the real strong hint that they're not welcome and they move on. Leaving an echo chamber behind.   

Well, most people would be smart enough to catch the hint and leave. But wouldn't you know it?  I'm not smart.  And I'm perfectly happy to be a Russian bot*.  As for using humor, I enjoy it. So I'm going to continue.  If those reading this would like a deeper analysis of the use of humor, maybe read some Alinsky? 

And with that, let's have some fun talking the POTUS candidates. 

*(Never trust a Russian bot.  They lie.) 

     

 

 

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4381
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2067 on: February 05, 2020, 05:52:14 PM »

You'll note that I'm not addressing the [in]correctness of your opinions, merely your behavior. I'm "accusing" you of acting like a troll because that's how you're acting.

Thank you for the note and your views.  I will think about them.  No, really. I do think about what people say. Even if I disagree. It's a bad habit.     

Now that you've had your say, I'm going tell you what I think.  I've been at MMM for what 8-9 months now? And have generally avoided the off topic threads.  Mostly because when it comes down to it, I'm emphatically apolitical.  I'm not registered to vote, I don't plan to vote, I believe both the factions suck (to put it most kindly), and I view politics as counterproductive.  My political party? None of the above- conscientious objector.     

I've noticed over time that these political threads are posted by about 30-50 people.  Almost all left of center.  Fair enough, the vibe of MMM is left wing.  Live and let live.  But then I started noticing that these threads had almost no real ideological diversity.  I mean, you would expect at least a few right wingers to put in an occasional comment and spice things up and start a polite debate. But not really.  And then I noticed the why. It seems that when someone who has an alternate view has the temerity to chime in, they get accused of being a troll or a Russian bot or some such.  But they're not accused directly.  It's an insinuation game.  But the effect is the same.  The person with the differing opinion gets the real strong hint that they're not welcome and they move on. Leaving an echo chamber behind.   

Well, most people would be smart enough to catch the hint and leave. But wouldn't you know it?  I'm not smart.  And I'm perfectly happy to be a Russian bot*.  As for using humor, I enjoy it. So I'm going to continue.  If those reading this would like a deeper analysis of the use of humor, maybe read some Alinsky? 

And with that, let's have some fun talking the POTUS candidates. 

*(Never trust a Russian bot.  They lie.) 

So you're apolitical, you've avoided the off topic threads, but you've noticed over time that the right wingers are called trolls?

Since you've noticed this over time, who has been driven off after being called a Russian troll? Daisy is one. Are there others, noticed over time (8-9 months)?

Here's another question: Are there are any actively posting conservatives that aren't called trolls? Or did they fail the conservative purity test and don't count as "real" conservatives?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2020, 05:53:59 PM by bacchi »

DaMa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 417
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2068 on: February 05, 2020, 06:00:55 PM »
I actually do appreciate posters with viewpoints different from my own.  Many times their opinion have sent me off to do research to learn more about what they say.  They hardly ever change my mind, but at least I understand more.

But, Boris, as far as I'm concerned, if you don't vote, you aren't entitled to an opinion.  Our system sucks, but the only way to make it better is to participate.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 886
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2069 on: February 05, 2020, 06:23:48 PM »
But, Boris, as far as I'm concerned, if you don't vote, you aren't entitled to an opinion.

I take that one step farther and say that if you don't vote and live in a state that has switched party affiliations of their electoral delegates at least once in the last 20 years, you aren't entitled to an opinion.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2020, 06:26:44 PM by YttriumNitrate »

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2375
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2070 on: February 05, 2020, 07:02:03 PM »
I actually do appreciate posters with viewpoints different from my own.  Many times their opinion have sent me off to do research to learn more about what they say.  They hardly ever change my mind, but at least I understand more.

But, Boris, as far as I'm concerned, if you don't vote, you aren't entitled to an opinion.  Our system sucks, but the only way to make it better is to participate.

I agree with the first part but I don't understand the second. If one's honest opinion is that all options are equally bad, what should they do?

I don't think we can say anyone isn't entitled to an opinion.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2251
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2071 on: February 05, 2020, 07:29:05 PM »
Anyone have thoughts about who the most electable Democratic candidate would be?

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2763
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2072 on: February 05, 2020, 07:32:26 PM »
Anyone have thoughts about who the most electable Democratic candidate would be?

Running or not running currently?

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2251
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2073 on: February 05, 2020, 07:33:50 PM »
Currently running.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2763
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2074 on: February 05, 2020, 07:50:13 PM »
I stand by my previous prediction on this thread that Buttigeig is the only one I see who can beat Trump.  However, I'm in the minority in that view.  I'm OK with that.

538.com has a tracker of who's most likely to get the nomination, and that's currently Sanders at about 37%:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

And a majority of Democratic voters prefer someone who can beat Trump over someone who agrees with them.  But those polls only run about 60/40.

:shrug:

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2075 on: February 05, 2020, 08:07:49 PM »
Anyone have thoughts about who the most electable Democratic candidate would be?

Trump - he used to be a Democrat,.....

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2076 on: February 05, 2020, 08:08:35 PM »
Anyone have thoughts about who the most electable Democratic candidate would be?

Trump - he used to be a Democrat,.....

Does that make Bloomberg the most electable Republican?

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1622
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2077 on: February 05, 2020, 10:22:21 PM »
Anyone have thoughts about who the most electable Democratic candidate would be?

We talked about this at work today.  The general consensus was Buttigieg with Warren as #2.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2078 on: February 06, 2020, 04:26:24 AM »
Anyone have thoughts about who the most electable Democratic candidate would be?

We talked about this at work today.  The general consensus was Buttigieg with Warren as #2.

That's exactly the ticket that I hope to get a chance to vote for.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 886
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2079 on: February 06, 2020, 05:06:37 AM »
Anyone have thoughts about who the most electable Democratic candidate would be?

Add me to the Buttigeig chorus. Successful Democratic candidates tend to be young, and geographically he's from just about the right spot to carry several swing states. Still, even with those factors, unless the economy goes south in the next 6-months I don't particularly like his odds.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1192
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2080 on: February 06, 2020, 05:21:27 AM »
Anyone have thoughts about who the most electable Democratic candidate would be?

Add me to the Buttigeig chorus. Successful Democratic candidates tend to be young, and geographically he's from just about the right spot to carry several swing states. Still, even with those factors, unless the economy goes south in the next 6-months I don't particularly like his odds.

I've supported Pete before it was cool to do so.  :)

I like Warren a lot too. Those two together have such brainpower. I do worry if they are too 'wonky' for 'America. I mean, does America even WANT a smart Prez/VP? Lots of folks seem fine with the status quo. (and then we had 8 years of "Dubya" too).

Do people get jealous when it's obvious other people are smarter/more educated than they are? I think so. Of course, I thought the same with wealth too, but that never came to pass Trump. He could brag and brag about his money, and his crowds ate it up. I guess that's because, on some level, even a low-wage blue collar supporter of Thump might tell themselves, "Maybe one day that can be me, too!"

Many people aspire to become rich, not to become educated or knowlegeable.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2081 on: February 06, 2020, 05:40:01 AM »
Anyone have thoughts about who the most electable Democratic candidate would be?

We talked about this at work today.  The general consensus was Buttigieg with Warren as #2.

That's exactly the ticket that I hope to get a chance to vote for.

Would they be compatible as running mates?

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2082 on: February 06, 2020, 06:10:05 AM »
Anyone have thoughts about who the most electable Democratic candidate would be?

We talked about this at work today.  The general consensus was Buttigieg with Warren as #2.

That's exactly the ticket that I hope to get a chance to vote for.

Would they be compatible as running mates?

I don't know, but I can't think of any particular reason they wouldn't be.  Can you?

LaineyAZ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 327
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2083 on: February 06, 2020, 06:34:01 AM »
I saw Yang last night on CNN.  He was on stage answering questions from an audience at St. Anselm college in New Hampshire.  The audience asked thoughtful questions and Yang was great - intelligent, responsive, sometimes with a touch of humor.   Reminded me of how Pres. Obama could handle Q&A in front of a live audience - I miss those days.

It looks like he won't win the nomination but I'd sure like to see him in the administration under some capacity.

Interestingly, he cited a poll of young Republicans who said if they were to switch, Yang would get their vote vs. any other current candidate.  Yang himself thinks he has the strongest chance to beat Trump one-on-one. 

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3106
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2084 on: February 06, 2020, 06:58:45 AM »
Anyone have thoughts about who the most electable Democratic candidate would be?

I have a friend who claims that Michelle Obama would win easily. He openly admits that he doesn't want that, he's pretty happy with how things are going with Trump.

Pigeon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2085 on: February 06, 2020, 07:20:07 AM »
  Yang himself thinks he has the strongest chance to beat Trump one-on-one.

They all think that about themselves.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2086 on: February 06, 2020, 07:31:22 AM »
I actually do appreciate posters with viewpoints different from my own.  Many times their opinion have sent me off to do research to learn more about what they say.  They hardly ever change my mind, but at least I understand more.

But, Boris, as far as I'm concerned, if you don't vote, you aren't entitled to an opinion.  Our system sucks, but the only way to make it better is to participate.

I agree with the first part but I don't understand the second. If one's honest opinion is that all options are equally bad, what should they do?

I don't think we can say anyone isn't entitled to an opinion.

Work to make the system better. That's what a patriot would do. "Working to make the system better" may involve running yourself, volunteering for campaigns, phone banking, donating, any number of things, but at the very minimally least voting for the person you thing would do the best job (even if they don't have a realistic chance of winning).

I am ideologically opposed to Trumpers in just about every way possible, but I have more respect for them than I do someone who has just given up on democracy entirely. Voting is not a "privilege", it's a civic duty. And voting for someone who doesn't have a realistic chance of winning this election is not "throwing away your vote", it still has the effect of making it a little more likely, a little more feasible, that that person or someone like them will be able to win next time.

You can argue semantics all day about whether anyone "deserves to have an opinion", but the people who refuse to participate in democracy at all are on the very bottom rung of people who's opinions deserve to be listened to.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2087 on: February 06, 2020, 07:40:02 AM »
Yang is the last remaining candidate who has a net positive approval rating among all voters (not just democratic voters), and he draws in a significant chunk of Obama-Trump and Obama-Didn't-Vote-in-2016 voters who aren't considering other candidates. (Source, apologies for linking to a PDF)

After Yang though, I agree with the folks who say Buttigieg is probably the most electable of the candidates we are left with at this point in the process. In both cases we have a youngish candidate (<50, and definitely <70) who would paint a sharp contrast with Trump on the debate stage. No one has yet to successfully lay a finger on Yang on the debate stage, and when Pete has been attacked by Klobuchar and Warren he's demonstrated the ability to counter punch effectively without either letting attacks passed unchallenged or getting sucked off message.

On a policy level neither Yang or Buttigieg supports a ban on private health insurance (which, whatever you think about its desirability as policy is clearly a deal breaker for most voters), which I fear would sink Sanders and Warren in the general election. They also aren't perceived as creatures of the status quo. In Yang's stump speech he points out that while Trump was running in 2016 on "Make America great again" Clinton's response was "America is already great" ... that didn't work out so far for us.

Both Biden and Klobuchar are candidates I could see thinking, and saying, the same thing. "America is pretty great the way it is, we just need to get Trump out of office." Aside from not wanting Trump to be president I'm still not sure what their campaigns stand for. And no matter how qualified you are, running a campaign where you're not given people much to vote for, only bad things about your opponent to vote against, hasn't worked historically in US presidential elections.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2088 on: February 06, 2020, 08:12:38 AM »
Are we looking at the same polls?

RCP Average for Trump vs. X

Biden: +5.4%
Sanders: +3.7%
Warren: +1.8%
Buttigieg: -0.3%

He also polls poorly compared to the other candidates in Florida, Wisconsin, Nevada. I have to wonder if Buttigieg is actually the only one that can lose.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 886
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2089 on: February 06, 2020, 08:16:05 AM »
Would they be compatible as running mates?
I don't know, but I can't think of any particular reason they wouldn't be.  Can you?

The answer to that question is Florida. Adding a woman from Boston isn't the best choice when that area is already a lock for the Democratic candidate. A man from the rust belt and a woman from Miami, now that would be a winning combination. 

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2375
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2090 on: February 06, 2020, 08:33:47 AM »
I actually do appreciate posters with viewpoints different from my own.  Many times their opinion have sent me off to do research to learn more about what they say.  They hardly ever change my mind, but at least I understand more.

But, Boris, as far as I'm concerned, if you don't vote, you aren't entitled to an opinion.  Our system sucks, but the only way to make it better is to participate.

I agree with the first part but I don't understand the second. If one's honest opinion is that all options are equally bad, what should they do?

I don't think we can say anyone isn't entitled to an opinion.

Work to make the system better. That's what a patriot would do. "Working to make the system better" may involve running yourself, volunteering for campaigns, phone banking, donating, any number of things, but at the very minimally least voting for the person you thing would do the best job (even if they don't have a realistic chance of winning).

I am ideologically opposed to Trumpers in just about every way possible, but I have more respect for them than I do someone who has just given up on democracy entirely. Voting is not a "privilege", it's a civic duty. And voting for someone who doesn't have a realistic chance of winning this election is not "throwing away your vote", it still has the effect of making it a little more likely, a little more feasible, that that person or someone like them will be able to win next time.

You can argue semantics all day about whether anyone "deserves to have an opinion", but the people who refuse to participate in democracy at all are on the very bottom rung of people who's opinions deserve to be listened to.

Fair answer, but I should have made my question more specific. What should they do with regard to voting? If one honestly believes all options are equally bad (a strange conclusion for sure), then who should they vote for? I strongly disagree with the opinion that all options are equally bad, but it's still a valid opinion.

You may be right that this is a misunderstanding of semantics, I just thought that saying someone isn't entitled to an opinion was too harsh. Saying you aren't interested in listening to their opinion has a much different meaning to me.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15253
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2091 on: February 06, 2020, 08:38:09 AM »
I actually do appreciate posters with viewpoints different from my own.  Many times their opinion have sent me off to do research to learn more about what they say.  They hardly ever change my mind, but at least I understand more.

But, Boris, as far as I'm concerned, if you don't vote, you aren't entitled to an opinion.  Our system sucks, but the only way to make it better is to participate.

I agree with the first part but I don't understand the second. If one's honest opinion is that all options are equally bad, what should they do?

I don't think we can say anyone isn't entitled to an opinion.

Work to make the system better. That's what a patriot would do. "Working to make the system better" may involve running yourself, volunteering for campaigns, phone banking, donating, any number of things, but at the very minimally least voting for the person you thing would do the best job (even if they don't have a realistic chance of winning).

I am ideologically opposed to Trumpers in just about every way possible, but I have more respect for them than I do someone who has just given up on democracy entirely. Voting is not a "privilege", it's a civic duty. And voting for someone who doesn't have a realistic chance of winning this election is not "throwing away your vote", it still has the effect of making it a little more likely, a little more feasible, that that person or someone like them will be able to win next time.

You can argue semantics all day about whether anyone "deserves to have an opinion", but the people who refuse to participate in democracy at all are on the very bottom rung of people who's opinions deserve to be listened to.

Fair answer, but I should have made my question more specific. What should they do with regard to voting? If one honestly believes all options are equally bad (a strange conclusion for sure), then who should they vote for? I strongly disagree with the opinion that all options are equally bad, but it's still a valid opinion.

You may be right that this is a misunderstanding of semantics, I just thought that saying someone isn't entitled to an opinion was too harsh. Saying you aren't interested in listening to their opinion has a much different meaning to me.

If you truly believe that all candidates are equally bad then you should run as an independent and vote for yourself.  When that option is suggested, most people decided that one candidate suddenly becomes more palatable than the many others though - as I've never actually met someone who really believed that all options were equally bad.  Met many who like to say that as a way to brush off their duty of voting though.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2375
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2092 on: February 06, 2020, 08:43:01 AM »
...snip

If you truly believe that all candidates are equally bad then you should run as an independent and vote for yourself.  When that option is suggested, most people decided that one candidate suddenly becomes more palatable than the many others though - as I've never actually met someone who really believed that all options were equally bad.  Met many who like to say that as a way to brush off their duty of voting though.

Yes, there's a very good chance that it's just a cop-out, but I don't think "then run yourself" is a fair rebuttal. Running for political office is kind of a big step.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2093 on: February 06, 2020, 08:58:38 AM »
Fair answer, but I should have made my question more specific. What should they do with regard to voting? If one honestly believes all options are equally bad (a strange conclusion for sure), then who should they vote for? I strongly disagree with the opinion that all options are equally bad, but it's still a valid opinion.

You can always vote for someone. Write in a candidate if you have to, or for a 3rd party candidate. Or file an empty ballot, or one that only casts a vote for your local school superintendent or something. Then at least your vote will be counted as "I don't like any of these candidates, but I haven't given up on the concept of Democracy quite yet."
« Last Edit: February 06, 2020, 09:16:50 AM by sherr »

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2763
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2094 on: February 06, 2020, 10:07:31 AM »
I mean, does America even WANT a smart Prez/VP?

I thought President Obama was pretty smart.  He did undergrad at Columbia and law school at Harvard.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4965
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2095 on: February 06, 2020, 10:18:35 AM »
I mean, does America even WANT a smart Prez/VP?

I thought President Obama was pretty smart.  He did undergrad at Columbia and law school at Harvard.

Yeah, I think Democrats want a smart president.

Not so much Republicans.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2763
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2096 on: February 06, 2020, 10:27:11 AM »
I mean, does America even WANT a smart Prez/VP?

I thought President Obama was pretty smart.  He did undergrad at Columbia and law school at Harvard.

Yeah, I think Democrats want a smart president.

Not so much Republicans.

I considered that interpretation of the post, but the part I quoted immediately followed comments about Buttigeig and Warren.  :shrug:

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4965
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2097 on: February 06, 2020, 10:41:42 AM »
I mean, does America even WANT a smart Prez/VP?

I thought President Obama was pretty smart.  He did undergrad at Columbia and law school at Harvard.

Yeah, I think Democrats want a smart president.

Not so much Republicans.

I considered that interpretation of the post, but the part I quoted immediately followed comments about Buttigeig and Warren.  :shrug:

I'd say most Democrats think Buttigieg's and Warren's intelligence is something they like about those candidates. But the fact is, we need more than the committed Democrats to elect a new president. And given that part of what needs to happen is to win over people who either voted for Trump in 2016 or didn't think he was a bad enough choice to vote for his opponent... I'm not sure that those people care about having a smart president, given what they were okay with electing.

skp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • Location: oh
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2098 on: February 06, 2020, 11:06:38 AM »
I mean, does America even WANT a smart Prez/VP?

I thought President Obama was pretty smart.  He did undergrad at Columbia and law school at Harvard.

Yeah, I think Democrats want a smart president.

Not so much Republicans.
Since when does where someone went to school equal intelligence.  Really... Obama is smart because he went to Columbia and HARVARD????  GW Bush went to Yale and Trump to Penn and they are both idiots according to the dems.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2099 on: February 06, 2020, 11:12:12 AM »