The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Glenstache on January 22, 2019, 02:37:42 PM

Title: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on January 22, 2019, 02:37:42 PM
So, people are starting to express formal interest in running for president. Much like Christmas, it seems like just as one ends, the advertising and planning for the next one begins. So far, the list is:

GOP:
Trump (declared on Jan 20, 2017)

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

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

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: the_fixer on January 22, 2019, 11:14:19 PM
I suspect Hickenlooper will jump in as well. I really like him and hope he makes a run for it.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Financial.Velociraptor on January 23, 2019, 03:34:51 PM
I hadn't heard about Castro.  Interesting dynamic there.  Trumpy clearly can't afford to lose TX so he'd at least have to defend there.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on January 23, 2019, 03:58:43 PM
I am fascinated to watch the whole thing.

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

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

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

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

Finally, will anyone on either side end up mounting a significant third party run?  I doubt this; I think whichever major party views a third party run as a threat will co-opt or buy out or threaten the third party candidate in some fashion.  It is too obvious of a risk.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: SuperNintendo Chalmers on January 24, 2019, 06:51:25 AM
I suspect Hickenlooper will jump in as well. I really like him and hope he makes a run for it.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Me too.  I think he would (or at least try to) do a lot to bring sides together and find common ground.  Unfortunately, he is probably not "sensational" or headline-grabbing enough to go far in a field crowded with big names. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 24, 2019, 07:44:31 AM
Regardless of the quality of candidates, it's impossible for it not to look ridiculous when you have a dozen candidates doing a debate. It just looks like a circus, people are desperate to squeeze in a one-liner or some talking points, and there will always be people talking over each other.

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

BUT the mere optics of a shit ton of Dem candidates in debates would make it all look silly, and Trump will have a field day making fun of them.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: MonkeyJenga on January 24, 2019, 08:06:44 AM
BUT the mere optics of a shit ton of Dem candidates in debates would make it all look silly, and Trump will have a field day making fun of them.

The high volume of candidates reflects a huge interest in unseating Trump. In all the negative comparisons to silly crowded Republican debates in 16, is everyone forgetting that the person who came out of that primary WON?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on January 24, 2019, 08:07:11 AM
Regardless of the quality of candidates, it's impossible for it not to look ridiculous when you have a dozen candidates doing a debate. It just looks like a circus, people are desperate to squeeze in a one-liner or some talking points, and there will always be people talking over each other.

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

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

Yeah -- which is ridiculous, of course, since there were 17 Republican candidates last time around. But hey, logic has no place here, and Americans have short memories.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 24, 2019, 08:44:37 AM
Regardless of the quality of candidates, it's impossible for it not to look ridiculous when you have a dozen candidates doing a debate. It just looks like a circus, people are desperate to squeeze in a one-liner or some talking points, and there will always be people talking over each other.

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

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

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

To be clear, I'll be voting for whoever wins the Dem primary; I was just expressing my opinion on what I fear will happen. And although I am a progressive, I don't have a purity test; I just want someone who can/will beat Trump (which really should be ANYone, but I thought HRC would beat Trump, so who knows).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Blueberries on January 24, 2019, 08:47:30 AM
I want Kasich for GOP. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on January 24, 2019, 09:32:21 AM
I want Kasich for GOP.

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

Ok, that's not entirely true. I definitely have preferences as to whom I'd like to see win the Democratic nomination, but I'm not going to get all pissy and sit out the general election like some of Bernie's supporters did if my preferred candidate doesn't secure the nomination. I definitely hope Bernie and Hillary sit this one out. I wouldn't mind if Biden runs.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on January 24, 2019, 09:40:02 AM
I'm a registered Republican who voted for Kasich in the NC primary.

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

I would like a candidate with a record of public service (no Ben Carson or Fiorina, please). From that record, it's possible to discern positions on issues, and I have many where I break with Trump.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Blueberries on January 24, 2019, 10:07:18 AM
I'm a registered Republican who voted for Kasich in the NC primary.

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

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

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

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

I want Kasich for GOP.

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

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

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

My only concern with Biden is age, just from a practical perspective.  But, I voted for Bernie in the primary so I'd vote for Biden in the general election if he is the nominee. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on January 24, 2019, 10:21:03 AM
The other thing I am interested to watch is what Secretary Clinton does and what her impact on the race is.  Will she endorse someone?  Will she run?  Will she campaign for the Democrat nominee?  Would she be considered as a Democrat VP nominee?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on January 24, 2019, 01:38:48 PM
Oh, gosh, can you imagine if Clinton runs again?

And--just for total bizarro--can you imagine what Republicans will do if she runs again, flips Florida and Michigan, and unseats Trump? Heads will explode!
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on January 24, 2019, 01:48:34 PM
Oh, gosh, can you imagine if Clinton runs again?

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

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

If she runs again and got the nomination, I think it would be fascinating to see how the general election would play out.  Both parties would obviously change things.  I've no idea what the result would be.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on January 24, 2019, 02:28:49 PM
Oh, gosh, can you imagine if Clinton runs again?

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

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

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

I can't imagine a scenario in which Hillary gets the 2020 nomination, even if she does run. It ain't happening.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on January 24, 2019, 02:43:38 PM
Any guesses on the maximum size of the Democrat field?  I've seen news stories with nearly 30 candidates' pictures shown.  I don't think it will get that big, since I accept the analysis that there are "swimlanes" such that candidates in any given swimlane effectively discourages additional entries into that same lane.  At the very least the fundraising and endorsement pool for any given swimlane is finite.

The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, entered the race for the Democrat nomination yesterday.  It seems he is considered a long shot.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on January 24, 2019, 03:06:31 PM
I think the experience of the GOP primaries in 2016, and other races, make a strong case for ranked voting. This allows voters to show variable support in a big field, and reduces the vote splitting/dilution issues among similar candidates .
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: former player on January 28, 2019, 06:37:32 AM
I see that Howard Schultz is thinking of running.

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

Of course, what this does point up is the stupidity of having so many positions appointed by the President.  Any truly reforming President would limit the number of Presidential appointments to the Cabinet plus an appropriate number of deputies for each member of the Cabinet.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: sherr on January 28, 2019, 09:40:45 AM
I'm a registered Republican who voted for Kasich in the NC primary.

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

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

Really I wish that's how everyone everywhere was. Less identifying as being part of "team X" and more voting for the best candidate on either side would be good for the country.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: sherr on January 28, 2019, 09:49:21 AM
Apart from the political issues, one thing I don't understand is where an independent candidate is going to find the 4,000 people needed for a full complement of Presidential appointees.  I mean, Trump (who is basically blackballed by a large part of the Republican party, to the extent that he is effectively an independent under cover of a Republican candidate) has been unable to fill many of those positions.

Trump is not having a hard time finding people because he's "not really a Republican", Trump is having a hard time finding people because he is Trump. A reasonable 3rd party president could easily find enough appointees by pulling from both the Republican and Democratic pools where the individuals aligned with their views.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Bateaux on January 28, 2019, 01:50:34 PM
I want Kasich for GOP.

If Kasich runs GOP, I'll probably change my registration back to Republican and support him in the primary.   Maybe not the general election.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Norioch on January 28, 2019, 02:59:39 PM
I'm rooting for Warren or Sanders but regardless of who wins the nomination I can't imagine any Democratic nominee whom I wouldn't vote for in the general election in 2020.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: tralfamadorian on January 28, 2019, 04:16:24 PM
Personally hoping for Beto or Biden, though I am concerned that the latter is too old.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: accolay on January 28, 2019, 04:56:45 PM
Democrats:
Elizabeth Warren - Senator from Mass.
Richard Ojeda - State senator from WV
Kamala Harris - Senator from CA
Kirsten Gillibrand - Senator from NY
Tulsi Gabbard - Congresswoman from Hawaii
Julian Castro - Former secretary of HUD, and mayor of San Antonio
John Delaney - former congressman from MD
Ojeda is out.

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

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

I really want a candidate who has worked and served in government so prospects such as Howard Schultz and any other CEO, billionaire or celebrity candidate are out for me.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on January 28, 2019, 05:34:48 PM
Democrats:
Elizabeth Warren - Senator from Mass.
Richard Ojeda - State senator from WV
Kamala Harris - Senator from CA
Kirsten Gillibrand - Senator from NY
Tulsi Gabbard - Congresswoman from Hawaii
Julian Castro - Former secretary of HUD, and mayor of San Antonio
John Delaney - former congressman from MD
Ojeda is out.

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

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

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

I will say, I would enjoy debates between Biden and Trump. Trump would shrivel up like a micropenis.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Telecaster on January 28, 2019, 07:54:30 PM
I see that Howard Schultz is thinking of running.


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

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





Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: libertarian4321 on January 28, 2019, 10:57:00 PM
Democrats:
Elizabeth Warren - Senator from Mass.
Richard Ojeda - State senator from WV
Kamala Harris - Senator from CA
Kirsten Gillibrand - Senator from NY
Tulsi Gabbard - Congresswoman from Hawaii
Julian Castro - Former secretary of HUD, and mayor of San Antonio
John Delaney - former congressman from MD
Ojeda is out.

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Unique User on January 28, 2019, 11:51:53 PM
Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few that I would not want to see win the nomination.  She supported Bashar-Assad and has very public anti-Muslim and anti-gay views.  She also appeared regularly on Fox News in 2014 and after to state that the problem with terrorism is that Obama didn't call it radical Islamic terrorism. I might be oversimplifying her positions, but I'm always suspicious of "progressives" that have vocal support from the likes of Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon and other far right figures. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Jim Fiction on January 29, 2019, 08:04:16 AM
Though his age scares me a bit, I am hoping that Bernie declares. He's the best choice by a mile.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Samuel on January 29, 2019, 10:30:06 AM
I see that Howard Schultz is thinking of running.


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

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

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

Democrats also need to remember that they may or may not actually be facing Trump by the time November 2020 rolls around. Whoever they pick needs to match up well against Trump, and also against a more typical Republican who might step in late in the process should Trump become unfeasible. I think there's a real chance Democrats go too far to the left with a candidate (and then damage them further in a contentious primary), only to see Trump withdraw late and Republicans stand up a "sensible" option palatable to enough of the Trump base and the conservative moderates to take the election.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on January 29, 2019, 10:37:41 AM
I see that Howard Schultz is thinking of running.


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

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

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

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

I would really, really like to believe that Democrats as a whole (as well as anti-Trump moderates) are smart enough by now to see that the fantasy that electing a billionaire CEO with no government experience IS A STUPID FANTASY THAT IS BEING FREAKING PROVEN RIGHT NOW TO BE DUMB AS HELL.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on January 29, 2019, 10:51:34 AM
I would really, really like to believe that Democrats as a whole (as well as anti-Trump moderates) are smart enough by now to see that the fantasy that electing a billionaire CEO with no government experience IS A STUPID FANTASY THAT IS BEING FREAKING PROVEN RIGHT NOW TO BE DUMB AS HELL.

Eh, I'm a Democrat. I think Howard Schultz would be a much better president than Donald Trump. Just because Trump is a corrupt buffoon who happens to be a billionaire doesn't mean all billionaires are corrupt buffoons. That said, I seriously do not want Schultz to run, and I wouldn't vote for him if he did. I haven't heard him offer any unique ideas for solving the problems our country faces.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on January 29, 2019, 11:08:14 AM
I would really, really like to believe that Democrats as a whole (as well as anti-Trump moderates) are smart enough by now to see that the fantasy that electing a billionaire CEO with no government experience IS A STUPID FANTASY THAT IS BEING FREAKING PROVEN RIGHT NOW TO BE DUMB AS HELL.

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

Sure. But my dirty gym socks would be a better president than Trump. Just because he's particularly bad doesn't mean we have to try this "Billionaire CEOs know how to run a company, so surely they'll be awesome at running a country!" nonsense again.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on January 29, 2019, 11:25:58 AM
I would really, really like to believe that Democrats as a whole (as well as anti-Trump moderates) are smart enough by now to see that the fantasy that electing a billionaire CEO with no government experience IS A STUPID FANTASY THAT IS BEING FREAKING PROVEN RIGHT NOW TO BE DUMB AS HELL.

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

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

Agree, we don't need to try it again. I only disagree with the specific assertion that Trump proves it's a bad idea. Joe Bob Cooter who put the "Infowars" sticker in the window at the local tire shop and struggles with the "s" sound because of the situation with his teeth would have been a better president than Trump, but that really doesn't prove anything about billionaires in general. Trump is simply a uniquely bad president person, and it really doesn't make sense to extrapolate his behavior towards any other person just because they have something in common with him. Well, except his family. Particularly Don Jr. and Eric. *shudder*
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: former player on January 29, 2019, 12:51:21 PM
I would really, really like to believe that Democrats as a whole (as well as anti-Trump moderates) are smart enough by now to see that the fantasy that electing a billionaire CEO with no government experience IS A STUPID FANTASY THAT IS BEING FREAKING PROVEN RIGHT NOW TO BE DUMB AS HELL.

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

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

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

One thing you probably can extrapolate is the failure of someone who has never been involved in government or politics to understand the norms within which government works.  One would hope that everyone is aware by now that it's a bad idea to have a foreign government help to elect you, or that continuing to own a business while President creates conflicts, or that foreign policy by tweet isn't a good idea, but without any experience a newbie to the system is always likely to commit some infractions or infelicities that could have been avoided with a bit more inside knowledge.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 29, 2019, 01:11:16 PM
Billionaires don't necessarily know much about policy issues. Look at how stupid Michael Dell looked the other day.

I am with Kris with saying no more billionaires.

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

Dems are morons if they don't vote for WHOEVER wins the primary with great enthusiasm. I am supporting whoever is their candidate. It doesn't matter who it is. And I likely won't contribute to any primary campaign, as I'll save up for the general instead.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on January 29, 2019, 01:26:40 PM
Speak for yourselves. For example, I'd trust Michael Bloomberg ahead of half the potential Democratic field. I know he has political experience as mayor of New York, but I don't doubt that he'd have done a better job at being president than say, George W. Bush, even with no prior political experience. (Again, I know that W set a low bar to measure against, but I regard him as merely a bottom quartile president, rather than the worst of all time).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: bw_94 on January 29, 2019, 01:38:53 PM
I'd consider voting for Tulsi Gabbard if the libertarian ticket looks too weak.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on January 29, 2019, 01:52:35 PM
Speak for yourselves. For example, I'd trust Michael Bloomberg ahead of half the potential Democratic field. I know he has political experience as mayor of New York, but I don't doubt that he'd have done a better job at being president than say, George W. Bush, even with no prior political experience. (Again, I know that W set a low bar to measure against, but I regard him as merely a bottom quartile president, rather than the worst of all time).

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

That's all I'm saying. We all have our preferences but in the end ANY of them are a million times better than who we have.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on January 29, 2019, 01:57:17 PM
Speak for yourselves. For example, I'd trust Michael Bloomberg ahead of half the potential Democratic field. I know he has political experience as mayor of New York, but I don't doubt that he'd have done a better job at being president than say, George W. Bush, even with no prior political experience. (Again, I know that W set a low bar to measure against, but I regard him as merely a bottom quartile president, rather than the worst of all time).

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

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

Yup.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on January 29, 2019, 03:08:39 PM
 time to update Reagan's old saw about the nine most dangerous words in the English language for the 21st century.

 Now it's, "I'm a famous billionaire and I'm here to help."
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: accolay on January 29, 2019, 04:42:06 PM
Quote
Fifty-six per cent of respondents in the Washington Post/ABC News survey said they would ďdefinitely not vote forĒ Mr Trump if he secures the Republican nomination

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

I suppose that makes me feel a little better.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on January 30, 2019, 06:37:57 AM
time to update Reagan's old saw about the nine most dangerous words in the English language for the 21st century.

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

LOL at the "Rich people are evil" vibe on a forum filled with rich people. I'm well aware that there's a big difference between a millionaire and a billionaire, but I don't think it's as big as the difference between a millionaire and (for example) an immigrant refugee family, or a generationally-impoverished minority family. Why are we to assume that millionaires could do a better job of understanding and helping the latter than billionaires? Anyway, this is the last thing I'm going to say on the topic: I genuinely don't give two shits how much money a presidential candidate has. I'd vote for Stacey Abrams, who is $100,000+ in debt and I'd vote for Michael Bloomberg, with a net worth of $50 billion+. As mentioned above, I won't pitch a fit and sit out the 2020 elections regardless of who the nominee is.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: J Boogie on January 30, 2019, 07:53:15 AM
It's a dumb time for Howard Schultz to throw his hat in the ring.

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

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

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



Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on January 30, 2019, 08:10:05 AM
time to update Reagan's old saw about the nine most dangerous words in the English language for the 21st century.

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

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

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

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

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

You know what I would like? Someone actually qualified to hold the highest office in the land. And sorry, but someone who has never bothered to serve in any government position before doesn't know what the hell they're doing. Trump is too stupid to be president. But even a non-stupid person with no governmental experience should not be in that job. There's too much of a learning curve. FFS, I honestly can't even believe that's up for debate.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Davnasty on January 30, 2019, 08:10:49 AM
time to update Reagan's old saw about the nine most dangerous words in the English language for the 21st century.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the lack of experience is your real issue?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on January 30, 2019, 08:24:29 AM
time to update Reagan's old saw about the nine most dangerous words in the English language for the 21st century.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the lack of experience is your real issue?

Lack of experience + hubris is a bad combo. Especially bad when you are running for the highest office in the land. And yeah, the billionaire status means that they can create a buzz around them, aided by the media (like, why exactly are we even taking this guy's potential candidacy seriously? Oh yeah, because he's a billionaire so it's news!!!)  -- and that there are always going to be some people deluded enough to believe the hype.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on January 30, 2019, 08:43:36 AM
time to update Reagan's old saw about the nine most dangerous words in the English language for the 21st century.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the lack of experience is your real issue?

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

I'm completely with you on the lack of experience + hubris, especially with regard to Shultz, but that's not where your focus was for most of the conversation. You just seemed especially focused on the fact that he was a billionaire businessman (which has no effect on my opinion of him as a presidential candidate) and less focused on the fact that he has no political experience, no novel ideas, and only seems to support fiscal policies that are good for him personally. You're absolutely correct that the only reason he's generating so much buzz is because he is a billionaire, but personally, I find that to be a fault with the media - and the people who consume media - not with Schultz himself.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on January 30, 2019, 08:48:50 AM
time to update Reagan's old saw about the nine most dangerous words in the English language for the 21st century.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the lack of experience is your real issue?

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

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

No, that's not where I was especially focused. I think that's what you believe I was focused on. But I'll give you I used "billionaire businessman" as shorthand for "businessman who thinks he's qualified to be president because he's rich even though he has no political experience, no actually decent ideas, and only seems to support fiscal policies that are good for him personally. But he can still command attention because he's a billionaire, so he actually convinces the media and a few suckers in the electorate to take him seriously."

But then, those seem to be the only businessmen pretenders to the presidency who get any traction, so... you'll excuse the abbreviated version.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: shenlong55 on January 30, 2019, 09:23:30 AM
time to update Reagan's old saw about the nine most dangerous words in the English language for the 21st century.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the lack of experience is your real issue?

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

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

I would still fault him because he likely knows of the issues with the media/public and is taking advantage of it.  And if not, then it's still his fault for not taking the time/effort to make himself aware of such issues.  It's not like they're some big secret.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on January 30, 2019, 10:31:46 AM
You're absolutely correct that the only reason he's generating so much buzz is because he is a billionaire, but personally, I find that to be a fault with the media - and the people who consume media - not with Schultz himself.

I would still fault him because he likely knows of the issues with the media/public and is taking advantage of it.  And if not, then it's still his fault for not taking the time/effort to make himself aware of such issues.  It's not like they're some big secret.

I'll snip this to keep the quotations from piling up. I want to be very clear that I fault Schultz for hubris and vanity - but plenty of people share those faults without being wealthy. Schultz appears to be using his fame and fortune to generate a stir in the media in an attempt to steer the public conversation away from policies that are bad for him, personally - like universal health care and tax hikes on the super-wealthy. I'm honestly not even convinced that he's seriously considering a presidential run, so much as he is trying to create headlines and pull back on the Left. So yeah, he's using his wealth to bully his way into the conversation, and he deserves to be criticized for that.

Contrast Schultz to Michael Bloomberg, who mulled a run as a centrist independent in 2016, but quietly backed away when polling clearly revealed that he had no chance of building a winning coalition and could merely play the role of spoiler. I don't believe that Schultz and Bloomberg have terribly different policy views, but I respect Bloomberg's tact a lot more. He puts environmental concerns and gun control - not fiscal conservatism - front and center in his policy statements, and he put his money where his mouth is by heavily investing and campaigning for Democratic nominees during the 2018 midterms. Again, not saying that Bloomberg is my #1 choice, but I probably align with him more closely on fiscal issues than, say, Bernie Sanders (who I supported in the 2016 primaries) or Elizabeth Warren.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: the_fixer on January 30, 2019, 01:39:56 PM
Billionaire VS life long politicians

Unfortunately I think in both cases we are getting a bad end result.

On one hand you have someone that is supposed to be good with business and would be considered successful but lacks the knowledge or connections in the political realm.

On the other you have someone that knows politics in and out, has made connections but to play at the level of president they owe a bunch of favors and are have their hands tied in many ways.

Unfortunately the politicians that would be good for the country, the world and it's citizens are unlikely to be the ones that amass enough power to reach for the presidency and often get chucked out the back of the political machine.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIRE@50 on January 30, 2019, 02:14:07 PM
Quote
Fifty-six per cent of respondents in the Washington Post/ABC News survey said they would ďdefinitely not vote forĒ Mr Trump if he secures the Republican nomination

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

I suppose that makes me feel a little better.
Does it really need to be said that Trump lost basically every poll up until the 2016 election? Oh and, he actually lost that too.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate on January 30, 2019, 02:18:31 PM
So far, I think Beto O'Rouke has the best chance against Trump.

First, younger Democratic candidates tend to do better. The last three successful Democratic presidential candidates were 46, 47, and 52 at their first inaugurations. O'Rouke is right in the sweet spot of having some experience while also being young enough to be relatable to the younger crowd.

Second, geography is important for the electoral college. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter's southern roots helped them carry many southern states, while Obama's Chicago ties helped him carry the rust belt. Since New York, New England, and California are already locks for the Democrats in 2020, having a candidate from there does not offer a significant advantage. O'Rouke carrying Texas (or at least a few southern states) would be a game changer in the electoral college.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIRE@50 on January 30, 2019, 02:23:42 PM
All that I know about Beto is that he gained some sort of celebrity status during the 2018 election cycle for some unknown reason but then couldn't even win a statewide election against an incredibly unlikable opponent. How is he a viable presidential candidate?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: ketchup on January 30, 2019, 02:36:51 PM
All that I know about Beto is that he gained some sort of celebrity status during the 2018 election cycle for some unknown reason but then couldn't even win a statewide election against an incredibly unlikable opponent. How is he a viable presidential candidate?
It's Texas, and he's a Dem.  It's a miracle he got so close.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate on January 30, 2019, 02:41:31 PM
All that I know about Beto is that he gained some sort of celebrity status during the 2018 election cycle for some unknown reason but then couldn't even win a statewide election against an incredibly unlikable opponent. How is he a viable presidential candidate?
That's one way to view his loss. Another way would be that his margin of defeat was 75% smaller than Hillary Clinton's, and he came within 2 percentage points of winning in a state that hasn't elected a Democratic Senator since Ronald Reagan was in office.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on January 30, 2019, 03:05:09 PM
Representative O'Rourke was also lauded for raising a lot of money for his campaign via small donations.  Whether one likes it or not, fundraising is probably an essential piece of a successful presidential campaign these days.

I think it is also helpful that he looks like he could be a younger cousin to the Kennedy family.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Cressida on January 30, 2019, 10:58:26 PM
My armchair analysis is that [Clinton] is being advised in strong terms not to run again.

I don't think Clinton needs to be "advised" not to run again. She made that decision on her own. She wouldn't have written her book about the 2016 election if she had any intention of remaining in politics.

As for this thread in general: Sometimes I kind of wish Sanders and Biden would both drop dead. These are a couple of ancient men* who've run for president in the past and lost, once and twice respectively. Why do we pay them so much attention? And Sanders at least has a unique message, much as I myself happen to dislike him. Biden has no rationale for running for president other than his own ego. PLUS he almost CERTAINLY has a Me Too incident in his past. Hard pass, thank you.


*"Ancient" and "man" aren't disqualifications on their own, but they are factors to consider when there are so many excellent options who are neither. Yes, I would like to see a female president, and I'm not ashamed to say so.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIRE@50 on January 31, 2019, 07:16:44 AM
I think ancient should be a disqualification on its own. If the Constitution allows age discrimination on the low end, it should also allow age discrimination on the high end. I won't be voting for anyone over the age of 60 for any government position.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Samuel on January 31, 2019, 10:13:24 AM
I think ancient should be a disqualification on its own. If the Constitution allows age discrimination on the low end, it should also allow age discrimination on the high end. I won't be voting for anyone over the age of 60 for any government position.

It is interesting that somehow Trump is proof that billionaires shouldn't be president but hardly anyone argues that he's proof that 70+ year olds shouldn't be president. Certainly seems likely that some of his shortcomings could be age related.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: OurTown on January 31, 2019, 12:54:55 PM
I am on board with Kamala Harris.  Smart, young(ish), accomplished, law & order background, inspirational, solid policy wonk.  Also she is a Westerner, which I think would be refreshing.  I personally have nothing against white guys, being one after all, but I would note that it is a positive factor that KH is neither white nor a guy.  So we would be spreading the love around by electing the first female and only the second "person of color."  She would bring some respectability back to the oval office, which is desperately needed. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate on January 31, 2019, 01:11:23 PM
While Kamala Harris is interesting, she's got a serious geography problem in that her home is over 400 miles from the closest state that went for Trump in 2016. She'd probably carry California by more than the 4.3 MILLION vote margin of victory Clinton had over Trump in California, but that doesn't help her get to the oval office.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Hula Hoop on January 31, 2019, 01:16:46 PM
I'm impressed by Kamala Harris too.  She has lots of charisma as well as policy expertise.  She'd be the first Asian American president as well as the first woman, if elected.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on January 31, 2019, 01:47:30 PM
If I had to pick among the candidates that have already announced their intention to run, I would go with Kamala, hand-down. Looking through this list of potential candidates (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/689980506/which-democrats-are-running-in-2020-and-which-still-might), I'm hard-pressed to see anyone on that list that I could be more excited about. She's eloquent, energetic, intelligent, and experienced. She connects to an audience in a way that Hillary never could.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on January 31, 2019, 01:53:12 PM
While Kamala Harris is interesting, she's got a serious geography problem in that her home is over 400 miles from the closest state that went for Trump in 2016. She'd probably carry California by more than the 4.3 MILLION vote margin of victory Clinton had over Trump in California, but that doesn't help her get to the oval office.

Agreed. I think Klobuchar has a much better chance, for many reasons including her geographical advantage.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on January 31, 2019, 02:04:19 PM
While Kamala Harris is interesting, she's got a serious geography problem in that her home is over 400 miles from the closest state that went for Trump in 2016. She'd probably carry Califhttps://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/Themes/default/images/bbc/list.gifornia by more than the 4.3 MILLION vote margin of victory Clinton had over Trump in California, but that doesn't help her get to the oval office.

Agreed. I think Klobuchar has a much better chance, for many reasons including her geographical advantage.

I like Amy Klobuchar. She's probably my #2 choice at this point. But I'm not convinced that regional candidates are as important as y'all seem to think. Whatever support Kamala loses in the Midwest because of her background in California, I'd suggests she makes up for it in charisma. And can we just be honest for a moment? Obama's race helped him turn out minority votes in the Sunbelt, which led him to wins in North Carolina and Florida. I think Kamala would have an easier time turning those states blue than Klobuchar would.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on January 31, 2019, 02:24:45 PM
If I had to pick among the candidates that have already announced their intention to run, I would go with Kamala, hand-down. Looking through this list of potential candidates (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/689980506/which-democrats-are-running-in-2020-and-which-still-might), I'm hard-pressed to see anyone on that list that I could be more excited about. She's eloquent, energetic, intelligent, and experienced. She connects to an audience in a way that Hillary never could.

I think Senator Harris has the best chance at beating President Trump.  I will be interested to see how her run for office turns out.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Unique User on February 01, 2019, 05:40:28 AM
While Kamala Harris is interesting, she's got a serious geography problem in that her home is over 400 miles from the closest state that went for Trump in 2016. She'd probably carry Califhttps://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/Themes/default/images/bbc/list.gifornia by more than the 4.3 MILLION vote margin of victory Clinton had over Trump in California, but that doesn't help her get to the oval office.

Agreed. I think Klobuchar has a much better chance, for many reasons including her geographical advantage.

I like Amy Klobuchar. She's probably my #2 choice at this point. But I'm not convinced that regional candidates are as important as y'all seem to think. Whatever support Kamala loses in the Midwest because of her background in California, I'd suggests she makes up for it in charisma. And can we just be honest for a moment? Obama's race helped him turn out minority votes in the Sunbelt, which led him to wins in North Carolina and Florida. I think Kamala would have an easier time turning those states blue than Klobuchar would.

I'm a big fan of Kamala Harris and I'd love to see a Harris/Klobuchar or Harris/Sherrod Brown ticket.  I think both are solid, well thought individuals that would both in terms of centricity and geography, balance any issues with Kamala being from California.   
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on February 01, 2019, 06:36:06 AM
So Cory Booker is official now. No surprise there.

The Democrats have a lot of good options in 2020. A breath of fresh after after 2016. Don't get me wrong, I would have been fine with Sanders or Clinton as president, but it was clear to me early on that both of them had limited appeal and serious flaws as presidential candidates. I voted for Sanders in the primary, mostly because Clinton seemed like the only person in the world who was so widely disliked that she might actually lose to Trump.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: GrayGhost on February 03, 2019, 10:53:53 PM
I think one of the struggles Candidate Harris is going to have is appeal to moderates, let alone right wingers. She seems to be a staunch leftist on every issue that comes to mind, which appeals to me in quite a few ways, but I'm not sure how this is supposed to gain moderate votes or win over right wingers. She is definitely a stronger candidate and I suspect she'd get a bit further if she were to join with Candidate Booker, who tries to be quite a bit more centrist, but when it comes down to it, there's really no reason why a right winger ought to vote for her, and even moderates will struggle as they may agree with her only a small portion of the time.

Personally, I'd like to see her opinions on foreign policy and civil liberties. It's a real shame that discussion on those two issues have basically gone the way of the dodo, since "no one is listening in on your phone calls" and apparently the President has unilateral authority to assassinate anyone anywhere and go to war in any country because 9/11 or something.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on February 04, 2019, 06:56:48 AM
I think one of the struggles Candidate Harris is going to have is appeal to moderates, let alone right wingers. She seems to be a staunch leftist on every issue that comes to mind, which appeals to me in quite a few ways, but I'm not sure how this is supposed to gain moderate votes or win over right wingers. She is definitely a stronger candidate and I suspect she'd get a bit further if she were to join with Candidate Booker, who tries to be quite a bit more centrist, but when it comes down to it, there's really no reason why a right winger ought to vote for her, and even moderates will struggle as they may agree with her only a small portion of the time.

Personally, I'd like to see her opinions on foreign policy and civil liberties. It's a real shame that discussion on those two issues have basically gone the way of the dodo, since "no one is listening in on your phone calls" and apparently the President has unilateral authority to assassinate anyone anywhere and go to war in any country because 9/11 or something.

I really don't see that as a problem. I thought that right-leaning moderates would have trouble voting for Trump, but clearly that wasn't a problem. I don't see any reason that left-leaning moderates would have any issues casting a vote for Harris.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: J Boogie on February 04, 2019, 09:49:10 AM
While Kamala Harris is interesting, she's got a serious geography problem in that her home is over 400 miles from the closest state that went for Trump in 2016. She'd probably carry California by more than the 4.3 MILLION vote margin of victory Clinton had over Trump in California, but that doesn't help her get to the oval office.

Agreed. I think Klobuchar has a much better chance, for many reasons including her geographical advantage.

Also notable is her genuine goodness as a human being. If you've read any of my other posts you'd probably notice I lean more to the right as a moderate, but even republicans in MN like and respect Amy Klobuchar.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on February 04, 2019, 01:25:56 PM
While Kamala Harris is interesting, she's got a serious geography problem in that her home is over 400 miles from the closest state that went for Trump in 2016. She'd probably carry California by more than the 4.3 MILLION vote margin of victory Clinton had over Trump in California, but that doesn't help her get to the oval office.

Agreed. I think Klobuchar has a much better chance, for many reasons including her geographical advantage.

Also notable is her genuine goodness as a human being. If you've read any of my other posts you'd probably notice I lean more to the right as a moderate, but even republicans in MN like and respect Amy Klobuchar.

That may the best endorsement I've ever heard for a political candidate. I could really go for a president who is a genuinely good human being right about now.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: accolay on February 04, 2019, 04:47:33 PM
I think one of the struggles Candidate Harris is going to have is appeal to moderates, let alone right wingers.

I agree, esp. about the civil liberties and foreign policy.

What I don't understand is how Republicans are still (maybe?) thought of as the balanced budget hawks. Why can't Democrats run with this since the idea has fairly broad appeal. Not only can they use the idea of increasing the marginal tax rate on the top for green projects, but also to pay down the debt, or at least close the deficit gap.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: GrayGhost on February 04, 2019, 06:08:54 PM
I think one of the struggles Candidate Harris is going to have is appeal to moderates, let alone right wingers.

I agree, esp. about the civil liberties and foreign policy.

What I don't understand is how Republicans are still (maybe?) thought of as the balanced budget hawks. Why can't Democrats run with this since the idea has fairly broad appeal. Not only can they use the idea of increasing the marginal tax rate on the top for green projects, but also to pay down the debt, or at least close the deficit gap.

It's unfortunately a matter of identity and rhetoric at this point, rather than policy. Clearly the GOP is not very good for the deficit, it's just the cudgel they use to bash the DNC and appeal to part of their base.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: golden1 on February 04, 2019, 06:53:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 04, 2019, 07:19:43 PM
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.

I agree, and this is my main problem with Warren.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: GrayGhost on February 04, 2019, 07:24:05 PM
Really? I find Warren pretty inspiring, even if I don't always agree with her. She's very thoughtful and extremely qualified. There is the bizarre fixation with her point whatever percent native American heritage, but besides that, she seems to be a pretty strong candidate.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 04, 2019, 07:46:49 PM
Really? I find Warren pretty inspiring, even if I don't always agree with her. She's very thoughtful and extremely qualified. There is the bizarre fixation with her point whatever percent native American heritage, but besides that, she seems to be a pretty strong candidate.

I do, too. But not at all charismatic.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Blueberries on February 05, 2019, 06:13:23 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.

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.

I think Biden has more charisma than either and I like Harris & Bernie.  He hasn't publicly confirmed anything so who knows.  Also, Klobuchar is a favorite of mine and she has a huge likability factor (not charisma, but still).  She's also more moderate, which I think is desperately needed right now.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: golden1 on February 05, 2019, 07:16:41 AM
Biden also passes the charisma test.  He would have been the president now if he had run. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on February 05, 2019, 08:44:13 AM
I'm a registered Republican who voted for Kasich in the NC primary.

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

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

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

It's odd, but I was having zero success getting a NC driver's license when I first moved here. Then--on my third visit--I said, "I want to get a driver's license and register to vote as a Republican", and it's like the doors open, and everyone wants to help me.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: J Boogie on February 05, 2019, 03:27:41 PM
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.

I agree, and this is my main problem with Warren.

These are interesting assessments! Just goes to show how subjective charisma can be. I thought Bush Jr was pretty charismatic in his trademark disarming aw shucks kind of way. His bullhorn speech on the rubble of the WTC was unforgettable and I can't think of another president who could deliver that speech as well and put his arm around a fire chief without giving off the feeling that he was using them as a prop.

Anyways, I find Beto to be the most charismatic. But he's a white man, and liberals would have to be completely convinced he's the only one who could beat Trump before they'd choose him over a woman or POC.

Warren shot herself in the foot with her DNA test results. The GOP primary should have taught her that the best thing to do is ignore bullies rather than responding to their ridiculous taunts as though they can be one-upped.

It's hard not to mention Cory Booker when talking about charisma, as he's got it, but is often accused of coming off as phony. I think he's genuine, but I get that his earnestness and profound language leave people feeling like he's selling something. I don't think he'll get the nomination.

Amy K has a quiet charisma that will probably get overlooked in this crowded field. But it might mean she'll be first in line as a VP choice.

My money's on Harris given that she's presidential, polished, and seems to be what the DNC is looking for. I don't think the far left economic progressives will get their Bernie or even Warren, but I think they have already been successful in getting things like medicare for all pushed into the official agenda.




Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on February 06, 2019, 06:37:27 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.

I agree, and this is my main problem with Warren.

These are interesting assessments! Just goes to show how subjective charisma can be. I thought Bush Jr was pretty charismatic in his trademark disarming aw shucks kind of way. His bullhorn speech on the rubble of the WTC was unforgettable and I can't think of another president who could deliver that speech as well and put his arm around a fire chief without giving off the feeling that he was using them as a prop.

Anyways, I find Beto to be the most charismatic. But he's a white man, and liberals would have to be completely convinced he's the only one who could beat Trump before they'd choose him over a woman or POC.

Warren shot herself in the foot with her DNA test results. The GOP primary should have taught her that the best thing to do is ignore bullies rather than responding to their ridiculous taunts as though they can be one-upped.

It's hard not to mention Cory Booker when talking about charisma, as he's got it, but is often accused of coming off as phony. I think he's genuine, but I get that his earnestness and profound language leave people feeling like he's selling something. I don't think he'll get the nomination.

Amy K has a quiet charisma that will probably get overlooked in this crowded field. But it might mean she'll be first in line as a VP choice.

My money's on Harris given that she's presidential, polished, and seems to be what the DNC is looking for. I don't think the far left economic progressives will get their Bernie or even Warren, but I think they have already been successful in getting things like medicare for all pushed into the official agenda.

I agree with most of your summations. Warren playing into Trump's bullying with the ridiculous genetic test really lowered my estimation for her as a political strategist. And it's a story that's not going to die. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/warren-american-indian-texas-bar/index.html)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on February 06, 2019, 06:44:09 AM
After watching Bernie last night, I am reminded that, for me, he's the most likable potential candidate. I understand that other candidates may be sincere, but his sincerity shines through in a way unlike others. My only concern is his age. If I were him, I would probably just address that issue head on, and pick a (much younger) VP partner if/when I announce. I know that might seem presumptuous, and I'm not sure if it's happened in recent history, but it might make sense here. Governors in many states already do it all the time; they announce the ticket leading up to the party primary. It's not like it's unheard of.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: SnipTheDog on February 06, 2019, 09:02:10 AM
After watching Bernie last night, I am reminded that, for me, he's the most likable potential candidate. I understand that other candidates may be sincere, but his sincerity shines through in a way unlike others. My only concern is his age. If I were him, I would probably just address that issue head on, and pick a (much younger) VP partner if/when I announce. I know that might seem presumptuous, and I'm not sure if it's happened in recent history, but it might make sense here. Governors in many states already do it all the time; they announce the ticket leading up to the party primary. It's not like it's unheard of.

What will do Bernie in is that he's running as an Independent.  He's not running as a Democrat.  In the end, I think that alone will kill any progress he makes in the primaries because the Democratic party doesn't need to support him.  If he had gotten the nomination instead of Clinton, I believe that Trump would have had no chance in the general election.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Chris22 on February 06, 2019, 10:51:34 AM

Warren shot herself in the foot with her DNA test results. The GOP primary should have taught her that the best thing to do is ignore bullies rather than responding to their ridiculous taunts as though they can be one-upped.

I agree with most of your summations. Warren playing into Trump's bullying with the ridiculous genetic test really lowered my estimation for her as a political strategist. And it's a story that's not going to die. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/warren-american-indian-texas-bar/index.html)

Wait, so it's Trump's fault that Warren lied about her heritage to get a job and try and use it to her advantage?  Calling her on her lies makes him a bully?  Okay. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on February 06, 2019, 11:47:29 AM

Warren shot herself in the foot with her DNA test results. The GOP primary should have taught her that the best thing to do is ignore bullies rather than responding to their ridiculous taunts as though they can be one-upped.

I agree with most of your summations. Warren playing into Trump's bullying with the ridiculous genetic test really lowered my estimation for her as a political strategist. And it's a story that's not going to die. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/warren-american-indian-texas-bar/index.html)

Wait, so it's Trump's fault that Warren lied about her heritage to get a job and try and use it to her advantage?  Calling her on her lies makes him a bully?  Okay.

1. Warren gets blame for playing to Trump's bait. Warren also gets blame for overstating her heritage. There is a lot to unpack there related to identity some of which plays to her favor and some that does not.
2. Trump is a bully and an asshole for calling her Pocahontas, etc. Trump's treatment of the situation is bad in a different way.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Davnasty on February 06, 2019, 11:50:25 AM

Warren shot herself in the foot with her DNA test results. The GOP primary should have taught her that the best thing to do is ignore bullies rather than responding to their ridiculous taunts as though they can be one-upped.

I agree with most of your summations. Warren playing into Trump's bullying with the ridiculous genetic test really lowered my estimation for her as a political strategist. And it's a story that's not going to die. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/warren-american-indian-texas-bar/index.html)

Wait, so it's Trump's fault that Warren lied about her heritage to get a job and try and use it to her advantage?  Calling her on her lies makes him a bully?  Okay.

This one just won't die

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-native-american/

Even the first person to bring it up, Scott Brown, acknowledged that he didn't know whether or not it helped her get a job and since he made that statement it's been shown that it did not.

Quote
In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warrenís professional history, the [Boston]Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.

I think it was a mistake for her to ever check any sort of box claiming native heritage considering how far back it goes in her genealogy and I do hold that against her. I like her less for it. But the claims that Trump and his supporters have made are outright lies.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 06, 2019, 11:53:21 AM

Warren shot herself in the foot with her DNA test results. The GOP primary should have taught her that the best thing to do is ignore bullies rather than responding to their ridiculous taunts as though they can be one-upped.

I agree with most of your summations. Warren playing into Trump's bullying with the ridiculous genetic test really lowered my estimation for her as a political strategist. And it's a story that's not going to die. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/warren-american-indian-texas-bar/index.html)

Wait, so it's Trump's fault that Warren lied about her heritage to get a job and try and use it to her advantage?  Calling her on her lies makes him a bully?  Okay.

1. Warren gets blame for playing to Trump's bait. Warren also gets blame for overstating her heritage. There is a lot to unpack there related to identity some of which plays to her favor and some that does not.
2. Trump is a bully and an asshole for calling her Pocahontas, etc. Trump's treatment of the situation is bad in a different way.

And a racist.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: golden1 on February 06, 2019, 11:57:29 AM
Quote
Wait, so it's Trump's fault that Warren lied about her heritage to get a job and try and use it to her advantage?

No.  Just no. 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html)

It doesn't matter though, she won't win or get nominated, despite her actual concern for working class families and concrete policies to protect consumers.  She can stay being my senator.  :D 

Yeah, come to think of it, Bush was more charismatic, especially earlier in his presidency, than I gave him credit for.  But my premise still stands.  The left needs someone very charismatic to counter Trump.  To me, Trump has extremely negative charisma, but it is still compelling.  We have a giant thread discussing him after all, and I don't remember that in the Obama years.  They need someone who will draw their eyes away from Trump, which is no easy task.  Maybe his over saturation will be his downfall.  At this point, when he says something "shocking" it barely registers. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on February 06, 2019, 02:19:57 PM

Warren shot herself in the foot with her DNA test results. The GOP primary should have taught her that the best thing to do is ignore bullies rather than responding to their ridiculous taunts as though they can be one-upped.

I agree with most of your summations. Warren playing into Trump's bullying with the ridiculous genetic test really lowered my estimation for her as a political strategist. And it's a story that's not going to die. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/warren-american-indian-texas-bar/index.html)

Wait, so it's Trump's fault that Warren lied about her heritage to get a job and try and use it to her advantage?  Calling her on her lies makes him a bully?  Okay.

LOL. No, calling her out for lying is fine. Calling her "Pocahontas" makes him a bully. I know you're intelligent enough to know the difference. Frankly, I wouldn't give a damn about Warren's heritage or what she marked as her ethnicity if she didn't try to back it up with the DNA test that basically proved otherwise. There are a lot of myths that have been passed down about family heritage that, until recently, we had no way to prove one way or another. My family honest-to-God believed that my great-grandmother was a full-blooded Cherokee Indian. We were told that from a young age. My aunt recently had a genetic test that basically showed 100% European heritage. I was surprised, because I had no reason to believe that the family stories were wrong. So bottom line, the reason that the whole issue lowers my estimation of Warren is because she tried to exonerate herself with evidence that basically proved she was wrong. The correct way to deal with him would have been to ignore him or kick him in the nuts. That's always the correct way to deal with bullies.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Spiritual_Lobotomy on February 06, 2019, 02:41:32 PM
Bernie is the clear choice.  I think the American public is more familiar with Trump than any other recent president where its more about direction than personality.  Its going to be about turnout!  A Bernie Sanders/Rashida Tlaib would not only be a certain victory but the real change the country needs to move in the right direction.  However, I am somewhat concerned about the sexual harassment issues that took place in the 2016 Sanders Campaign. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on February 06, 2019, 02:51:53 PM
I wish Bernie would have announced after his SOTU response last night. He had a lot of buzz on social media. Shit would have gotten real very quickly. I still think he should grab someone like Tulsi or Beto and say look, "Run with me, I'll do one term, and then you're sitting pretty when I hand you the baton."

In the abstract, all things being equal, I would rather the Dems have a POC or women as the nom, because I think the default of straight old white guy needs to end. But...I just love Bernie to death. I really do. He was defending gay people in the early 90s when Congressman were still calling them "homos" on the House floor. The video is easy to find.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on February 06, 2019, 08:05:49 PM

Warren shot herself in the foot with her DNA test results. The GOP primary should have taught her that the best thing to do is ignore bullies rather than responding to their ridiculous taunts as though they can be one-upped.

I agree with most of your summations. Warren playing into Trump's bullying with the ridiculous genetic test really lowered my estimation for her as a political strategist. And it's a story that's not going to die. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/warren-american-indian-texas-bar/index.html)

Wait, so it's Trump's fault that Warren lied about her heritage to get a job and try and use it to her advantage?  Calling her on her lies makes him a bully?  Okay.

LOL. No, calling her out for lying is fine. Calling her "Pocahontas" makes him a bully. I know you're intelligent enough to know the difference. Frankly, I wouldn't give a damn about Warren's heritage or what she marked as her ethnicity if she didn't try to back it up with the DNA test that basically proved otherwise. There are a lot of myths that have been passed down about family heritage that, until recently, we had no way to prove one way or another. My family honest-to-God believed that my great-grandmother was a full-blooded Cherokee Indian. We were told that from a young age. My aunt recently had a genetic test that basically showed 100% European heritage. I was surprised, because I had no reason to believe that the family stories were wrong. So bottom line, the reason that the whole issue lowers my estimation of Warren is because she tried to exonerate herself with evidence that basically proved she was wrong. The correct way to deal with him would have been to ignore him or kick him in the nuts. That's always the correct way to deal with bullies.

Actually, you may have Native American ancestry (is it possible a few generations more distant than you were told?), but through recombination, your aunt or branch of the family may have lost the markers they use to trace it.  These tests can only show if you do have a certain kind of ancestry, but can't prove you don't have it. 
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/dna-ancestry-test-siblings-different-results-genetics-science/

Anyway, from what I see, I don't think Warren's a liar  or an opportunist.  She thought she was the distant descendant of a Native American, and the DNA shows that she probably is. The genealogy doesn't prove it-- doesn't disprove it (I did some digging around and can discourse on this if you require.)

Warren's not eligible to join the Cherokee Nation because she doesn't have a genealogy linking her to an ancestor on the Dawes rolls, but she hasn't been trying to join them.  She did claim Native American heritage twice as far as we know, on  internal records only. And two other major groups of Cherokees don't seem to mind her claim of kinship.
https://www.businessinsider.com/richard-sneed-cherokee-chief-voices-support-for-elizabeth-warren-2018-10
 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: accolay on February 06, 2019, 08:31:15 PM
In the news:

Tulsi Gabbard is endorsed by David Duke; also wont say if Assad is our enemy or our adversary... interesting. I think I understand what she's trying to say, but man... bad optics.

Some of Klobuchar's X-aids have come forward saying she's an evil taskmaster. Jesus frownyface... So her biggest wag of the finger up to this point is that she wants her staff to work hard ?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on February 07, 2019, 07:56:20 AM

Warren shot herself in the foot with her DNA test results. The GOP primary should have taught her that the best thing to do is ignore bullies rather than responding to their ridiculous taunts as though they can be one-upped.

I agree with most of your summations. Warren playing into Trump's bullying with the ridiculous genetic test really lowered my estimation for her as a political strategist. And it's a story that's not going to die. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/warren-american-indian-texas-bar/index.html)

Wait, so it's Trump's fault that Warren lied about her heritage to get a job and try and use it to her advantage?  Calling her on her lies makes him a bully?  Okay.

LOL. No, calling her out for lying is fine. Calling her "Pocahontas" makes him a bully. I know you're intelligent enough to know the difference. Frankly, I wouldn't give a damn about Warren's heritage or what she marked as her ethnicity if she didn't try to back it up with the DNA test that basically proved otherwise. There are a lot of myths that have been passed down about family heritage that, until recently, we had no way to prove one way or another. My family honest-to-God believed that my great-grandmother was a full-blooded Cherokee Indian. We were told that from a young age. My aunt recently had a genetic test that basically showed 100% European heritage. I was surprised, because I had no reason to believe that the family stories were wrong. So bottom line, the reason that the whole issue lowers my estimation of Warren is because she tried to exonerate herself with evidence that basically proved she was wrong. The correct way to deal with him would have been to ignore him or kick him in the nuts. That's always the correct way to deal with bullies.

Actually, you may have Native American ancestry (is it possible a few generations more distant than you were told?), but through recombination, your aunt or branch of the family may have lost the markers they use to trace it.  These tests can only show if you do have a certain kind of ancestry, but can't prove you don't have it. 
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/dna-ancestry-test-siblings-different-results-genetics-science/

Anyway, from what I see, I don't think Warren's a liar  or an opportunist.  She thought she was the distant descendant of a Native American, and the DNA shows that she probably is. The genealogy doesn't prove it-- doesn't disprove it (I did some digging around and can discourse on this if you require.)

Warren's not eligible to join the Cherokee Nation because she doesn't have a genealogy linking her to an ancestor on the Dawes rolls, but she hasn't been trying to join them.  She did claim Native American heritage twice as far as we know, on  internal records only. And two other major groups of Cherokees don't seem to mind her claim of kinship.
https://www.businessinsider.com/richard-sneed-cherokee-chief-voices-support-for-elizabeth-warren-2018-10

Thanks for the link on genetic testing - that was interesting.

I'll agree that I don't see Warren as an opportunist. I don't believe she had any ill intentions when she checked "Native American" on those ethnicity boxes. I do think that she was lying, or at the very least stretching the truth. Even if I knew for a fact that I had Cherokee ancestry, I still can't imagine passing myself off as a Native American, given that I have no connection to the tribe besides the mere possibility of a genetic link.

But again, that's truly not the issue for me. It's just her handling of the situation that really seemed off. I like Warren fine personally. I disagree with her on some political issues, but not a lot. But will she handle the pressure (i.e., the smear campaigns) that comes with presidential candidacy? I'm unconvinced. Or at least, I'm convinced that there are other candidates who seem better-prepared.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: BlueMR2 on February 07, 2019, 09:21:35 AM
Gabbard started out looking like a good candidate, but the more I find out the worse it gets.  I really hope Clinton just goes away and doesn't try again.  She's an embarrassment to the party and way too dirty to support.  Biden, I don't know.  I did NOT like him as VP.  Some of it's probably just transfer from an ex-Mayor of ours though.  Biden looks and acts like his clone, and he was a terrible Mayor (despite being a good spokesperson for the city).  There's other potential on this side though, time will tell if any of it pans out.

On the other side, I'd love to see someone else unseat Trump somehow.  That's a super hard road to go though...  No clue who it would be.  Having lived under Kasich as Governor and known people that knew him personally, he's a strong no go for me.  Not seeing anyone else even remotely strong enough yet.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Chris22 on February 07, 2019, 09:25:19 AM
For reference, I grew up in a town called Ledyard, CT.  It is (sorta) home to the world's largest Indian casino, and was brought about on extremely sketchy circumstances, as outlined here. (https://www.amazon.com/Without-Reservation-Controversial-Indian-Largest/dp/0060931965/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1549556433&sr=8-1&keywords=without+reservation)

So I may be a little bit more sensitive to falsifying Native American roots and take a dim view of why someone might do that.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on February 07, 2019, 09:44:21 AM
I think Bernie is very likable but too old.  If elected in 2020, he would be about 5 years older than President Reagan was when Reagan started his second term.

I don't think Senator Warren is handling the ancestry issue very well.  My gut feel is that her candidacy will not last very long - obviously she has different political views from him, but her candidacy style reminds me of Governor Jeb Bush's candidacy in 2016:  somewhat hapless and fish-out-of-water-ish.

I don't like people who seem angry and raise their voice and interrupt, even if they have reason to do so.  Therefore I don't like Senator Booker.

I think Biden should either run or not run.  At this point he seems indecisive.

I continue to think that Senator Harris is the strongest candidate and I predict she will do well in the race for the Democrat nomination.  I think she'll get one of the two slots on the ticket and will be an asset in the general election.

I like Schultz from what little I've heard but think he could ensure Trump getting reelected.

Anyone mention Bloomberg yet and whether or not he will run?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on February 07, 2019, 10:31:56 AM
But again, that's truly not the issue for me. It's just her handling of the situation that really seemed off. I like Warren fine personally. I disagree with her on some political issues, but not a lot. But will she handle the pressure (i.e., the smear campaigns) that comes with presidential candidacy? I'm unconvinced. Or at least, I'm convinced that there are other candidates who seem better-prepared.

I see what you mean about how she handles attacks and smears, but at what point does it start getting too meta?

Bloomberg I like as a tycoon with heart, but I'm not crazy about him as an executive. He was mayor of NYC when I lived there and his choices for schools chancellor both stunk. His administration also mismanaged major IT projects (CityTime, NYcaps), come on, that should have been a strength! 

I don't care for Gabbard's cozy relationship with Modi and Assad, and she's behind the times on gay marriage, etc.

I've heard from friends who have met/known Cory Booker personally that he is actually the sweetest guy. So I'm inclined to give him another look, though I don't like the rumors about his relationship with pharma companies. But I haven't actually researched him yet so I'm not in any place to weigh in about him.  That's the problem with rumors... one uses them as a shortcut in place of actual knowledge.

I'm still finding out about the candidates; at this point I feel that most of them (except Tulsi Gabbard) would be fine on the issues.  So does it all come down to a beauty contest? Ability to govern is also important.
 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Abe on February 07, 2019, 09:48:38 PM
I'm just looking for a candidate who's not going to jump on the Scandinavian Democratic Socialist bandwagon. I like a strong safety net as much as the next hipster, but that is not going to get the majority of people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida excited. Like it or not, they basically decide who is President.

Also, I really don't care what race/ethnicity the person is. I'm Indian, and don't think an Indian candidate would somehow represent me better because our parents came over on the same Air India flight from Delhi via London. 

Of all the Democrat candidates or possible candidates so far, Gabbard is the only no-go. If I had to choose between her and Trump I'd go with her, but seriously? Someone find a picture of her hugging Assad, please. If that's the best we can do this time around, screw us and our dumb party.

There are potential non-idiots who could run against Trump from the Republican side, but I would doubt their judgement just for trying. Not even this guy is unpopular enough in his own party to lose an incumbency.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: MonkeyJenga on February 08, 2019, 04:03:11 AM
I'm just looking for a candidate who's not going to jump on the Scandinavian Democratic Socialist bandwagon. I like a strong safety net as much as the next hipster, but that is not going to get the majority of people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida excited. Like it or not, they basically decide who is President.

Also, I really don't care what race/ethnicity the person is. I'm Indian, and don't think an Indian candidate would somehow represent me better because our parents came over on the same Air India flight from Delhi via London. 

Of all the Democrat candidates or possible candidates so far, Gabbard is the only no-go. If I had to choose between her and Trump I'd go with her, but seriously? Someone find a picture of her hugging Assad, please. If that's the best we can do this time around, screw us and our dumb party.

There are potential non-idiots who could run against Trump from the Republican side, but I would doubt their judgement just for trying. Not even this guy is unpopular enough in his own party to lose an incumbency.

PA and Ohio have higher union membership than the national average, and campaigning on protecting unions and the social safety net is how Conor Lamb flipped his congressional seat. Wanting to afford healthcare and have some semblance of social security are things that cross party lines.

Also not sure why you're already jumping to shitting on Democrats for hypothetically nominating Gabbard. She has basically no chance.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on February 08, 2019, 09:16:29 AM
I just can't get over how ahead of the times Bernie was. This is only a 3 minute clip, but I think it tells you all you need to know about what kind of person Mr. Sanders is.       

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Kn9DLN51Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Kn9DLN51Y)

Damn, I wish he was 10 years younger.

But Harris does seem VERY strong. I like her a lot. I could get very excited about backing her. She seems almost unflappable. I think Trump would have a hard time handling her.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: anisotropy on February 08, 2019, 04:16:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 08, 2019, 04:19:13 PM
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.

On a related note, I'm curious what you think our government should be doing to combat global warming. Since you don't like their ideas, I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on addressing the problem.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: anisotropy on February 08, 2019, 05:20:37 PM
Climate change is real and at this point we should all understand that the likelihood of less than 2C change in average temperature in the next 50 or so years is pretty much nil.

Most people simply do not understand devouring nature is a price we must pay for technological/human progress. The very electronic device we use to post here consume more energy than our fridges in a year and pollute in its lifecycle.

Everything we do pollute and there is no way out of it. Yet the most effective individual action one can take to tackle climate change is at the same time incredibly simple: have less children.

The very act of having one less child reduces our contribution to the climate change more than all of our other actions combined (by a factor (https://phys.org/news/2017-07-effective-individual-tackle-climate-discussed.html) of 6). Put it another way, once a person has a child, he/she is a hypocrite for calling childless people (especially the ones by choice) "unenvironmental".

I am not saying everyone should stop having kids, it is a personal choice. Just know there are other individual acts we can do outside of that ridiculous GNP resolution that are more effective. If one is such a environmental warrior and prioritize combating climate change, then do all you can, instead of just pretending you care to look good. From a quick glance of the resolution's "sponsor" list, they are almost all hypocrites.

Secondly, the GNP resolution is about more than combating global warming. I absolutely detest all the identitarian bs that's in the resolution under the guise of Trojan-horse word "equity".
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 08, 2019, 05:25:53 PM
Climate change is real and at this point we should all understand that the likelihood of less than 2C change in average temperature in the next 50 or so years is pretty much nil.

Most people simply do not understand devouring nature is a price we must pay for technological/human progress. The very electronic device we use to post here consume more energy than our fridges in a year and pollute in its lifecycle.

Everything we do pollute and there is no way out of it. Yet the most effective individual action one can take to tackle climate change is at the same time incredibly simple: have less children.

The very act of having one less child reduces our contribution to the climate change more than all of our other actions combined (by a factor (https://phys.org/news/2017-07-effective-individual-tackle-climate-discussed.html) of 6). Put it another way, once a person has a child, he/she is a hypocrite for calling childless people (especially the ones by choice) "unenvironmental".

I am not saying everyone should stop having kids, it is a personal choice. Just know there are other individual acts we can do outside of that ridiculous GNP resolution, which are much more effective. If one is such a environmental warrior and prioritize combating climate change, then do all you can, instead of just pretending you care to look good. From a quick glance of the resolution's "sponsor" list, they are almost all hypocrites.

Secondly, the GNP resolution is about more than combating global warming. I absolutely detest all the identitarian bs that's in the resolution under the guise of Trojan-horse word "equity".

Sure. But... first, uh, that cat is kind of out of the bag (and you're also preaching to the choir, as I have chosen not to procreate). But seriously? Not having children is... not a particularly useful suggestion. Because people will have sex. And given that the very climate change deniers are also trying as hard as they can to outlaw abortion and birth control...

Meanwhile, our fossil fuel consumption is out of control... Just based on the number of people we already have...

And the ruling party in the US is literally trying to INCREASE fossil fuel consumption...

But you think halting births is the solution?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: anisotropy on February 08, 2019, 06:13:21 PM
Because people will have sex. And given that the very climate change deniers are also trying as hard as they can to outlaw abortion and birth control...

I am not sure that's entirely accurate, they are trying to limit late-term abortion, which is quite rare, but that's another topic altogether. Also I am not sure if republicans is indeed the ruling party, despite it holding the presidency.

Before we continue, I would like express my respect and gratitude regarding your personal choice, most people just don't get it when I bring up the issue. As I said, I am not advocating it being the solution for everyone, but anyone should be able to appreciate the irony and hypocrisy when someone that objectively "pollutes" more calls others unenvironmental.

It should be noted the role of nuclear is ambiguous under the GND resolution, although it's being excluded as part of the proposed mix. This renders the proposed plan almost cartoonish let alone unrealistic. So called renewables all have their unique environmental drawbacks, wind for example, have just been discovered they actually alter air flow and cause significant local climate change, and high amount of wind power could mean more (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612238/wide-scale-us-wind-power-could-cause-significant-warming/) climate warming.

Given the state of current technology, nat gas and nuclear are perhaps the least of many evils, all things considered. The root cause of environmental issues is population, and to fix the problem at its core we either need to halt population growth (which btw, is already happening globally) or have some sort of magic (I wouldn't even call it a tech) that provides and transmits limitless useable energy free of pollution.

Given the technological constraint, we are left with behavioral solutions. But these behavioral solutions must be realistic, the GND proposes to render air-travel unnecessary among many other things, lol I mean seriously? wtf? This is just as unattainable as "have less kids", and isn't even a tenth effective.

For a person who chooses to procreate, the onus is then on them to "make up" for the extra footprint. I would like to see some sort of tax-cut/rebate based on number of kids (but in reverse). I think the results would be a lot more environmental than conventional carbon taxes.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Abe on February 10, 2019, 01:25:31 PM
Isn't the most effective thing someone could do to mitigate climate change is die before having children? The not having children argument is logical if one looks at a society-level change. Yes, if we instituted a 1 child policy (or 0 child policy for undesirables...) then we would dramatically decrease pollution levels. So would a giant plague that wipes out half of humanity. Definitely would decrease pollution levels. Obviously that has to be balanced against other considerations such as having a long-term functional society (look at Japan and China's accidental and planned 1-child policies).

On an individual basis, saying that not having a kid reduces your environmental impact doesn't make sense, as it is really the kid's environmental impact. Unless we decide our impact doesn't start until we're 18. Otherwise we end up double-counting everyone's childhood. At any rate, I find the individual-level counting a bit nit-picky without wide-scale policy changes. I think it is possible, since almost all other developed countries are starting to make progress in that direction. Even in the US, most of the larger states are shifting towards renewable (even Texas!) It's just the US Federal government and Russia that don't care. 

I agree the Green New Deal is a bit over-zealous in its timeline, harms the environmental movement's attempts at shedding the hippy tree-hugger image that people detest so much, and throws in a giant casserole of left-wing social plans that aren't strongly related to environmental change. However, just telling people to not have kids is in theory the best way, but clearly won't work in the US. It's the same thing as saying "everyone stop driving cars and using hot water". Thanks, great idea, but we're looking for practical solutions.


Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Abe on February 10, 2019, 01:32:59 PM
I'm just looking for a candidate who's not going to jump on the Scandinavian Democratic Socialist bandwagon. I like a strong safety net as much as the next hipster, but that is not going to get the majority of people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida excited. Like it or not, they basically decide who is President.

Also, I really don't care what race/ethnicity the person is. I'm Indian, and don't think an Indian candidate would somehow represent me better because our parents came over on the same Air India flight from Delhi via London. 

Of all the Democrat candidates or possible candidates so far, Gabbard is the only no-go. If I had to choose between her and Trump I'd go with her, but seriously? Someone find a picture of her hugging Assad, please. If that's the best we can do this time around, screw us and our dumb party.

There are potential non-idiots who could run against Trump from the Republican side, but I would doubt their judgement just for trying. Not even this guy is unpopular enough in his own party to lose an incumbency.

PA and Ohio have higher union membership than the national average, and campaigning on protecting unions and the social safety net is how Conor Lamb flipped his congressional seat. Wanting to afford healthcare and have some semblance of social security are things that cross party lines.

Also not sure why you're already jumping to shitting on Democrats for hypothetically nominating Gabbard. She has basically no chance.

Because
1. this is a discussion thread of 2020 POTUS candidates. She is one, thus potentially can be nominated. I'm not shitting on anyone, much less my own party.
2. Many people thought Trump couldn't get nominated but here we are!
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Enough on February 10, 2019, 01:45:09 PM
For all those saying they support or want Biden to run, tell me if you can make it through watching this video.  Its unedited and the optics are horrible.

https://youtu.be/DwXweiRjckI
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: scottish on February 10, 2019, 03:21:04 PM
That video is suggesting that Biden is a paedophile?     All I see is a bunch of politicians posing for pictures with their families.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Johnez on February 10, 2019, 04:25:21 PM
Surprised more people aren't talking up Sherrod  Brown. Bernie, Warren, Clinton, and Biden have too much baggage in one way or the other.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Spiritual_Lobotomy on February 10, 2019, 05:49:56 PM
Climate change is real and at this point we should all understand that the likelihood of less than 2C change in average temperature in the next 50 or so years is pretty much nil.

Most people simply do not understand devouring nature is a price we must pay for technological/human progress. The very electronic device we use to post here consume more energy than our fridges in a year and pollute in its lifecycle.

Everything we do pollute and there is no way out of it. Yet the most effective individual action one can take to tackle climate change is at the same time incredibly simple: have less children.

The very act of having one less child reduces our contribution to the climate change more than all of our other actions combined (by a factor (https://phys.org/news/2017-07-effective-individual-tackle-climate-discussed.html) of 6). Put it another way, once a person has a child, he/she is a hypocrite for calling childless people (especially the ones by choice) "unenvironmental".

I am not saying everyone should stop having kids, it is a personal choice. Just know there are other individual acts we can do outside of that ridiculous GNP resolution, which are much more effective. If one is such a environmental warrior and prioritize combating climate change, then do all you can, instead of just pretending you care to look good. From a quick glance of the resolution's "sponsor" list, they are almost all hypocrites.

Secondly, the GNP resolution is about more than combating global warming. I absolutely detest all the identitarian bs that's in the resolution under the guise of Trojan-horse word "equity".

Sure. But... first, uh, that cat is kind of out of the bag (and you're also preaching to the choir, as I have chosen not to procreate). But seriously? Not having children is... not a particularly useful suggestion. Because people will have sex. And given that the very climate change deniers are also trying as hard as they can to outlaw abortion and birth control...

Meanwhile, our fossil fuel consumption is out of control... Just based on the number of people we already have...

And the ruling party in the US is literally trying to INCREASE fossil fuel consumption...

But you think halting births is the solution?


I agree.  I cried tears of joy when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unveiled the details of the GND.  This was clearly the turning point that is beginning to take hold to raise greater awareness.  Women like her will most certainly develop into the competent leadership we need over the next 30 years to combat and successfully eliminate climate change.  Woo-hoo I am hopeful! 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: anisotropy on February 10, 2019, 09:02:23 PM
On an individual basis, saying that not having a kid reduces your environmental impact doesn't make sense, as it is really the kid's environmental impact. Unless we decide our impact doesn't start until we're 18. Otherwise we end up double-counting everyone's childhood. At any rate, I find the individual-level counting a bit nit-picky without wide-scale policy changes. I think it is possible, since almost all other developed countries are starting to make progress in that direction. Even in the US, most of the larger states are shifting towards renewable (even Texas!) It's just the US Federal government and Russia that don't care. 


On most issues I would definitely agree with you. After all, blaming parents for kids' actions is clearly absurd (and vice versa) using modern standards. There is however, a key difference in this instance.

Nature does not care about the double counting argument. Whether we attribute the footprint to the parents or the children, as long as the emission continues nature/climate simply reacts accordingly. There is a "The End" total accumulation threshold for us, every action we take either speeds it up or slows it down, so we could rationalize our personal choices all we want, nature does not care. ;)

Quote
we're looking for practical solutions

My practical solution was to incentivize people to have less kids by offering tax-breaks and credits.  Granted most of the emissions are being generated by emerging countries now, so the "practical solutions" would need to get them involved as well. Having looked through the effectiveness of various environmental policies, I am quite underwhelmed, they have been more of a money grab than anything else, but i suppose it's better than nothing.

One thing I've noticed about our consumption pattern is that as we make things more "efficient", we simply consume more of it. Call me pessimistic and simple-minded, I just don't see a way out, but hey, what do I care, I would be long dead then with no descendants alive to face it.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on February 11, 2019, 12:17:38 AM
So, Senator Klobuchar entered the race.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on February 11, 2019, 04:15:30 AM
For all those saying they support or want Biden to run, tell me if you can make it through watching this video.  Its unedited and the optics are horrible.

https://youtu.be/DwXweiRjckI

Yeah that was very tough to watch.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: J Boogie on February 11, 2019, 08:36:50 AM
So, Senator Klobuchar entered the race.

Yes. And I am feeling pretty salty about endorsing her "genuine goodness as a human being" a few posts earlier. If you've read the huffpost article about the way she treats her employees it seems hard to make that case anymore.

"effective and respected bipartisan legislator" would have been accurate praise.

To be honest, I think this tanks her chances in a way that wouldn't hurt other candidates as much. For example Kamala Harris might be able survive this pretty well because it fits her brand. But Klobuchar's specific charisma is pretty evident in the way she titled her memoir - "The Senator Next Door" - Friendly, approachable.

Her response wasn't bad though. She admitted she was tough and has high expectations. Pretty much owned up to it without trying to wiggle out of it or offer some overcompensating and insincere apology.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 11, 2019, 08:51:49 AM
So, Senator Klobuchar entered the race.

Yes. And I am feeling pretty salty about endorsing her "genuine goodness as a human being" a few posts earlier. If you've read the huffpost article about the way she treats her employees it seems hard to make that case anymore.

"effective and respected bipartisan legislator" would have been accurate praise.

To be honest, I think this tanks her chances in a way that wouldn't hurt other candidates as much. For example Kamala Harris might be able survive this pretty well because it fits her brand. But Klobuchar's specific charisma is pretty evident in the way she titled her memoir - "The Senator Next Door" - Friendly, approachable.

Her response wasn't bad though. She admitted she was tough and has high expectations. Pretty much owned up to it without trying to wiggle out of it or offer some overcompensating and insincere apology.

Honestly, I'm looking at this through a different lens. I'm not sure why her being tough and having high expectations would tank her. Especially when the opposition is a pussy-grabbing, racist, misogynist serial cheater buffoon who lies like he breathes and is completely incompetent at his job, when he's not actively trying to destroy the pillars of the country.

"She's not as nice as I thought" isn't much of a deterrent to me. Especially when as a woman, I've been chastised to be "nice" countless times in my life, merely for being assertive in a leadership role.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on February 11, 2019, 09:16:33 AM
So, Senator Klobuchar entered the race.

Yes. And I am feeling pretty salty about endorsing her "genuine goodness as a human being" a few posts earlier. If you've read the huffpost article about the way she treats her employees it seems hard to make that case anymore.

"effective and respected bipartisan legislator" would have been accurate praise.

To be honest, I think this tanks her chances in a way that wouldn't hurt other candidates as much. For example Kamala Harris might be able survive this pretty well because it fits her brand. But Klobuchar's specific charisma is pretty evident in the way she titled her memoir - "The Senator Next Door" - Friendly, approachable.

Her response wasn't bad though. She admitted she was tough and has high expectations. Pretty much owned up to it without trying to wiggle out of it or offer some overcompensating and insincere apology.

Honestly, I'm looking at this through a different lens. I'm not sure why her being tough and having high expectations would tank her. Especially when the opposition is a pussy-grabbing, racist, misogynist serial cheater buffoon who lies like he breathes and is completely incompetent at his job, when he's not actively trying to destroy the pillars of the country.

"She's not as nice as I thought" isn't much of a deterrent to me. Especially when as a woman, I've been chastised to be "nice" countless times in my life, merely for being assertive in a leadership role.

I read through the article from Buzzfeed. Honestly, the stories make it sound like she'd be a difficult person to work for and definitely undercut her reputation as being approachable, gender notwithstanding. But there are countless examples of men who have been incredibly difficult, even toxic, bosses, yet they get lauded for extracting results while their behavior gets excused as a necessary ingredient of their success. Steve Jobs and Sergio Marchionne are two examples that come immediately to mind.

I still like Klobuchar as a candidate, and I agree that she would have wide appeal in a general election, especially in the critical Midwestern states. I remain skeptical that she could claim the nomination, though, simply because she may be viewed as "too moderate" for Democratic voters on the coasts and "too white" for the Democratic voters in the South. It's hard for me to see Klobuchar outperforming Kamala Harris in those regions. It'll be an interesting primary season for sure.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on February 11, 2019, 09:17:36 AM
So, Senator Klobuchar entered the race.

Yes. And I am feeling pretty salty about endorsing her "genuine goodness as a human being" a few posts earlier. If you've read the huffpost article about the way she treats her employees it seems hard to make that case anymore.

"effective and respected bipartisan legislator" would have been accurate praise.

To be honest, I think this tanks her chances in a way that wouldn't hurt other candidates as much. For example Kamala Harris might be able survive this pretty well because it fits her brand. But Klobuchar's specific charisma is pretty evident in the way she titled her memoir - "The Senator Next Door" - Friendly, approachable.

Her response wasn't bad though. She admitted she was tough and has high expectations. Pretty much owned up to it without trying to wiggle out of it or offer some overcompensating and insincere apology.

I'm glad she just owned it. I don't see friendly as exclusive of being driven. I work with lots of people that blend those. Sadly, yes, as a female in the world this may work against her due to double standards and easy narratives.

But, as Winston Churchill said, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." People are not elected based on a measured view of their qualifications and competence (obviously).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Davnasty on February 11, 2019, 09:46:18 AM
Surprised more people aren't talking up Sherrod  Brown. Bernie, Warren, Clinton, and Biden have too much baggage in one way or the other.

I haven't heard much about him but what little I have I would put him at the top of the list of candidates to beat Trump. He's from Ohio and I think he would appeal to a lot of the swing state voters from that region who voted Trump with hopes that he would save their jobs. I don't know anything about his charisma or how he would fare in a debate but what I've seen on paper is very appealing. And a bonus, haven't heard of any political baggage.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: J Boogie on February 11, 2019, 10:33:46 AM
I read through the article from Buzzfeed. Honestly, the stories make it sound like she'd be a difficult person to work for and definitely undercut her reputation as being approachable, gender notwithstanding. But there are countless examples of men who have been incredibly difficult, even toxic, bosses, yet they get lauded for extracting results while their behavior gets excused as a necessary ingredient of their success. Steve Jobs and Sergio Marchionne are two examples that come immediately to mind.

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

One, I think most progressive voters would (rightly) condemn this abusive behavior coming from a man. Why wouldn't they do the same for a woman?

Two, the whole idea that "male genius" causes us to overlook awful treatment of underlings requires extraordinary results. Klobuchar has done some solid work and gotten some good legislation passed, but lacks the extraordinary achievements that normally cause us to give this behavior a pass.



Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on February 11, 2019, 11:17:44 AM
I read through the article from Buzzfeed. Honestly, the stories make it sound like she'd be a difficult person to work for and definitely undercut her reputation as being approachable, gender notwithstanding. But there are countless examples of men who have been incredibly difficult, even toxic, bosses, yet they get lauded for extracting results while their behavior gets excused as a necessary ingredient of their success. Steve Jobs and Sergio Marchionne are two examples that come immediately to mind.

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

One, I think most progressive voters would (rightly) condemn this abusive behavior coming from a man. Why wouldn't they do the same for a woman?

Two, the whole idea that "male genius" causes us to overlook awful treatment of underlings requires extraordinary results. Klobuchar has done some solid work and gotten some good legislation passed, but lacks the extraordinary achievements that normally cause us to give this behavior a pass.

Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it. But it does strike as a bit off if the first person whose high-profile political career is derailed due to verbal beratement of staff "just so happens" to be a woman. That shit's been going on for decadesever. Is it enough for me to just say that 1) I'm conflicted and 2) I still think she'd be a much better president than Trump? I'm glad that she owned up to it, and I hope that it causes her to take a different tack in personnel management moving forward. I don't expect to vote for a candidate who's never made mistakes, but I do expect a candidate who is capable of personal growth and change. Klobuchar's campaign staff will certainly be closely watched.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: v8rx7guy on February 11, 2019, 11:30:51 AM
My prediction for whatever Democrat wins the party nomination is that they must not match at least one of these 3 attributes:

Straight
White
Male

That helps narrow things down.... Bernie, Biden and others will not be the party nominee, even if they turn out to be the most qualified.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 11, 2019, 11:34:39 AM
I read through the article from Buzzfeed. Honestly, the stories make it sound like she'd be a difficult person to work for and definitely undercut her reputation as being approachable, gender notwithstanding. But there are countless examples of men who have been incredibly difficult, even toxic, bosses, yet they get lauded for extracting results while their behavior gets excused as a necessary ingredient of their success. Steve Jobs and Sergio Marchionne are two examples that come immediately to mind.

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

One, I think most progressive voters would (rightly) condemn this abusive behavior coming from a man. Why wouldn't they do the same for a woman?

Two, the whole idea that "male genius" causes us to overlook awful treatment of underlings requires extraordinary results. Klobuchar has done some solid work and gotten some good legislation passed, but lacks the extraordinary achievements that normally cause us to give this behavior a pass.

Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it. But it does strike as a bit off if the first person whose high-profile political career is derailed due to verbal beratement of staff "just so happens" to be a woman. That shit's been going on for decadesever. Is it enough for me to just say that 1) I'm conflicted and 2) I still think she'd be a much better president than Trump? I'm glad that she owned up to it, and I hope that it causes her to take a different tack in personnel management moving forward. I don't expect to vote for a candidate who's never made mistakes, but I do expect a candidate who is capable of personal growth and change. Klobuchar's campaign staff will certainly be closely watched.

Here's the thing.

First, this is Buzzfeed. I mean, it's not as though this couldn't be true. But their record of factual reporting is mixed, at best, based on poor sourcing and failed fact checks. No emails themselves have been released. No names have been released.

I think it is awfully, awfully premature to pronounce that report credible. Especially given she is the most centrist of the Democratic candidates to announce. And that there are reasons for both the far left and the right to want to torpedo her candidacy as a result.

I'm really past the point of being comfortable with letting rumor and innuendo influence my opinions of candidates at this point. If she really is some sort of abusive monster, then more credible information will eventually come out.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: J Boogie on February 11, 2019, 11:45:11 AM
I read through the article from Buzzfeed. Honestly, the stories make it sound like she'd be a difficult person to work for and definitely undercut her reputation as being approachable, gender notwithstanding. But there are countless examples of men who have been incredibly difficult, even toxic, bosses, yet they get lauded for extracting results while their behavior gets excused as a necessary ingredient of their success. Steve Jobs and Sergio Marchionne are two examples that come immediately to mind.

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

One, I think most progressive voters would (rightly) condemn this abusive behavior coming from a man. Why wouldn't they do the same for a woman?

Two, the whole idea that "male genius" causes us to overlook awful treatment of underlings requires extraordinary results. Klobuchar has done some solid work and gotten some good legislation passed, but lacks the extraordinary achievements that normally cause us to give this behavior a pass.

Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it. But it does strike as a bit off if the first person whose high-profile political career is derailed due to verbal beratement of staff "just so happens" to be a woman. That shit's been going on for decadesever. Is it enough for me to just say that 1) I'm conflicted and 2) I still think she'd be a much better president than Trump? I'm glad that she owned up to it, and I hope that it causes her to take a different tack in personnel management moving forward. I don't expect to vote for a candidate who's never made mistakes, but I do expect a candidate who is capable of personal growth and change. Klobuchar's campaign staff will certainly be closely watched.

I don't think this mistreatment of staff is much of a dealbreaker in terms of how good of a president she'd be - there's definitely stories out there suggesting this hard-nosed approach can really push people to do their best work.

But I do think it undercuts the way that she's marketed herself to voters.

And I think the high turnover rate suggests her approach might not even be very effective, and simply is a means for her to release frustration. I imagine it might be learned behavior from her high powered law background. I remember my impressionable and high achieving oldest brother came home for a visit after his time as a junior level analyst investment banker... he berated my other brother for simply getting lost as they drove to whatever bar it was they were going to. It was very jarring to hear about, our family culture is the furthest thing from this type of behavior.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Wexler on February 11, 2019, 11:58:29 AM
That video is suggesting that Biden is a paedophile?     All I see is a bunch of politicians posing for pictures with their families.

You are witnessing the rollout of the anti-Biden messaging. I was on a hike and heard a college-age guy say something to his girlfriend about "Creepy Joe Biden" so it's gaining some traction. 

In his campaign tactics, Trump will actually be behaving more like a typical republican than at any other time.  You are a corrupt businessman with a foundation that smells?  Accuse your opponent of the same thing.  You are a creepy pervert who hangs out with a child molester like Jeff Epstein, makes sex comments about your daughter, brags about grabbing women by the genitalia, and raw dogged a porn star?  Accuse your opposition of being creepy. 

It has worked before for him, so I guess it can work again.  I mean, I guess Biden is creepier than Warren or Klobuchar, but Trump is still beating him by a mile on the creep factor. 


Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: J Boogie on February 11, 2019, 12:11:47 PM
I read through the article from Buzzfeed. Honestly, the stories make it sound like she'd be a difficult person to work for and definitely undercut her reputation as being approachable, gender notwithstanding. But there are countless examples of men who have been incredibly difficult, even toxic, bosses, yet they get lauded for extracting results while their behavior gets excused as a necessary ingredient of their success. Steve Jobs and Sergio Marchionne are two examples that come immediately to mind.

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

One, I think most progressive voters would (rightly) condemn this abusive behavior coming from a man. Why wouldn't they do the same for a woman?

Two, the whole idea that "male genius" causes us to overlook awful treatment of underlings requires extraordinary results. Klobuchar has done some solid work and gotten some good legislation passed, but lacks the extraordinary achievements that normally cause us to give this behavior a pass.

Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it. But it does strike as a bit off if the first person whose high-profile political career is derailed due to verbal beratement of staff "just so happens" to be a woman. That shit's been going on for decadesever. Is it enough for me to just say that 1) I'm conflicted and 2) I still think she'd be a much better president than Trump? I'm glad that she owned up to it, and I hope that it causes her to take a different tack in personnel management moving forward. I don't expect to vote for a candidate who's never made mistakes, but I do expect a candidate who is capable of personal growth and change. Klobuchar's campaign staff will certainly be closely watched.

Here's the thing.

First, this is Buzzfeed. I mean, it's not as though this couldn't be true. But their record of factual reporting is mixed, at best, based on poor sourcing and failed fact checks. No emails themselves have been released. No names have been released.

I think it is awfully, awfully premature to pronounce that report credible. Especially given she is the most centrist of the Democratic candidates to announce. And that there are reasons for both the far left and the right to want to torpedo her candidacy as a result.

I'm really past the point of being comfortable with letting rumor and innuendo influence my opinions of candidates at this point. If she really is some sort of abusive monster, then more credible information will eventually come out.

Yeah, I get that Buzzfeed (and HuffPo with the subsequent write ups) don't have a great reputation for accuracy. But she responded to this and didn't deny or claim any type of misrepresentation. The other established facts (her employee union president's statements in 2006, her turnover stats) are in keeping with this narrative. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for names, as most of these former staffers probably still want their careers. But I understand the reticence to accept the veracity of stories from journalistic bottom feeders in this current rapid-pace news cycle environment.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on February 11, 2019, 12:23:45 PM
I read through the article from Buzzfeed. Honestly, the stories make it sound like she'd be a difficult person to work for and definitely undercut her reputation as being approachable, gender notwithstanding. But there are countless examples of men who have been incredibly difficult, even toxic, bosses, yet they get lauded for extracting results while their behavior gets excused as a necessary ingredient of their success. Steve Jobs and Sergio Marchionne are two examples that come immediately to mind.

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

One, I think most progressive voters would (rightly) condemn this abusive behavior coming from a man. Why wouldn't they do the same for a woman?

Two, the whole idea that "male genius" causes us to overlook awful treatment of underlings requires extraordinary results. Klobuchar has done some solid work and gotten some good legislation passed, but lacks the extraordinary achievements that normally cause us to give this behavior a pass.

Yeah. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it. But it does strike as a bit off if the first person whose high-profile political career is derailed due to verbal beratement of staff "just so happens" to be a woman. That shit's been going on for decadesever. Is it enough for me to just say that 1) I'm conflicted and 2) I still think she'd be a much better president than Trump? I'm glad that she owned up to it, and I hope that it causes her to take a different tack in personnel management moving forward. I don't expect to vote for a candidate who's never made mistakes, but I do expect a candidate who is capable of personal growth and change. Klobuchar's campaign staff will certainly be closely watched.

Here's the thing.

First, this is Buzzfeed. I mean, it's not as though this couldn't be true. But their record of factual reporting is mixed, at best, based on poor sourcing and failed fact checks. No emails themselves have been released. No names have been released.

I think it is awfully, awfully premature to pronounce that report credible. Especially given she is the most centrist of the Democratic candidates to announce. And that there are reasons for both the far left and the right to want to torpedo her candidacy as a result.

I'm really past the point of being comfortable with letting rumor and innuendo influence my opinions of candidates at this point. If she really is some sort of abusive monster, then more credible information will eventually come out.

She did not contradict anything that was reported in her response, so I don't have much reason to doubt their credibility, but let me ask you this: If she actually felt that the reporting was unfair or inaccurate, do you think she should have said so? Or do you think that the correct political calculation was to accept the criticism and spin it as being "tough", even if she felt that the reporting was inaccurate? I think the latter approach was probably the correct one, regardless of whether or not the reporting was 100% accurate. People are sick of politicians who dodge and shift blame. Klobuchar didn't exactly apologize, but I bet she's more aware of this issue moving forward.

Frankly, I think this is less of a long-term issue for Klobuchar than say, Elizabeth Warren and her Native American heritage. Trump will milk his "Pocahontas" and "Trail of Tears" references for years (which will inevitably lead to the media to keep reporting on it, which will keep it in the public psyche), but do you really see him trying to criticize Klobuchar for being hard on her subordinates?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on February 11, 2019, 12:38:42 PM
That video is suggesting that Biden is a paedophile?     All I see is a bunch of politicians posing for pictures with their families.

You are witnessing the rollout of the anti-Biden messaging. I was on a hike and heard a college-age guy say something to his girlfriend about "Creepy Joe Biden" so it's gaining some traction. 

In his campaign tactics, Trump will actually be behaving more like a typical republican than at any other time.  You are a corrupt businessman with a foundation that smells?  Accuse your opponent of the same thing.  You are a creepy pervert who hangs out with a child molester like Jeff Epstein, makes sex comments about your daughter, brags about grabbing women by the genitalia, and raw dogged a porn star?  Accuse your opposition of being creepy. 

It has worked before for him, so I guess it can work again.  I mean, I guess Biden is creepier than Warren or Klobuchar, but Trump is still beating him by a mile on the creep factor.

No one has accused Trump of messing with kids.

That's just a "hell no" zone that infuriates people of all political stripes.

And that video of Biden grabbing the girls' arms, pulling them right next to him, whispering to them, jokes about posing alone with them, stroking their hair, etc etc etc man that just made my Creep Factor alarm go off. I mean, in virtually every pic session, he makes sure the girl(s) are as close to him as humanly possible, and he pretty much ignores the boys.

I try to be objective about things and call them like I see them. It's not like I WANT to view Biden as creepy. But I have a 13-year-old and if some dude, politician or not, stroked her hair and pulled her next to him, we would have words.

I'm not saying that he's necessarily anything beyond a handsy old man, but that's bad enough.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 11, 2019, 12:42:35 PM
That video is suggesting that Biden is a paedophile?     All I see is a bunch of politicians posing for pictures with their families.

You are witnessing the rollout of the anti-Biden messaging. I was on a hike and heard a college-age guy say something to his girlfriend about "Creepy Joe Biden" so it's gaining some traction. 

In his campaign tactics, Trump will actually be behaving more like a typical republican than at any other time.  You are a corrupt businessman with a foundation that smells?  Accuse your opponent of the same thing.  You are a creepy pervert who hangs out with a child molester like Jeff Epstein, makes sex comments about your daughter, brags about grabbing women by the genitalia, and raw dogged a porn star?  Accuse your opposition of being creepy. 

It has worked before for him, so I guess it can work again.  I mean, I guess Biden is creepier than Warren or Klobuchar, but Trump is still beating him by a mile on the creep factor.

No one has accused Trump of messing with kids.

That's just a "hell no" zone that infuriates people of all political stripes.

And that video of Biden grabbing the girls' arms, pulling them right next to him, whispering to them, jokes about posing alone with them, stroking their hair, etc etc etc man that just made my Creep Factor alarm go off. I mean, in virtually every pic session, he makes sure the girl(s) are as close to him as humanly possible, and he pretty much ignores the boys.

I have a 13-year-old and if some dude, politician or not, stroked her hair and pulled her next to him, we would have words.

I'm not saying that he's necessarily anything beyond a handsy old man, but that's bad enough.

Except how Trump used to walk into the dressing rooms of the Miss Teen USA pageant.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on February 11, 2019, 12:45:41 PM
Kris, I despise Trump possibly as much as you do. You don't have to convince me he's a creep.

But didn't the Biden video bother you? I felt icky after it.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on February 11, 2019, 12:47:40 PM
That video is suggesting that Biden is a paedophile?     All I see is a bunch of politicians posing for pictures with their families.

You are witnessing the rollout of the anti-Biden messaging. I was on a hike and heard a college-age guy say something to his girlfriend about "Creepy Joe Biden" so it's gaining some traction. 

In his campaign tactics, Trump will actually be behaving more like a typical republican than at any other time.  You are a corrupt businessman with a foundation that smells?  Accuse your opponent of the same thing.  You are a creepy pervert who hangs out with a child molester like Jeff Epstein, makes sex comments about your daughter, brags about grabbing women by the genitalia, and raw dogged a porn star?  Accuse your opposition of being creepy. 

It has worked before for him, so I guess it can work again.  I mean, I guess Biden is creepier than Warren or Klobuchar, but Trump is still beating him by a mile on the creep factor.

No one has accused Trump of messing with kids.

That's just a "hell no" zone that infuriates people of all political stripes.

And that video of Biden grabbing the girls' arms, pulling them right next to him, whispering to them, jokes about posing alone with them, stroking their hair, etc etc etc man that just made my Creep Factor alarm go off. I mean, in virtually every pic session, he makes sure the girl(s) are as close to him as humanly possible, and he pretty much ignores the boys.

I have a 13-year-old and if some dude, politician or not, stroked her hair and pulled her next to him, we would have words.

I'm not saying that he's necessarily anything beyond a handsy old man, but that's bad enough.

Except how Trump used to walk into the dressing rooms of the Miss Teen USA pageant.

Exactly. Trump is as creepy as it gets. But frankly, I'm pretty much done with Biden too. I'd be kind of shocked if he doesn't have some inappropriate conduct "skeletons" in his closet, and frankly, Democrats have been hammering on that shit for too long to ignore it now. I really don't care to be around for the shitshow that would ensue if Biden becomes the nominee and some "Me Too" allegations come to light. Next, please.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 11, 2019, 01:11:25 PM
Kris, I despise Trump possibly as much as you do. You don't have to convince me he's a creep.

But didn't the Biden video bother you? I felt icky after it.

I haven't watched it yet. I clicked on it this morning right before I started working, but then saw how long it was and clicked back out because I didn't have time for a twelve-minute video. I saw about thirty seconds of it. So I don't have enough info to judge yet.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on February 11, 2019, 01:15:09 PM
You can fast forward through some of it. But let's just say that you will notice a pattern.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 11, 2019, 01:27:07 PM
You can fast forward through some of it. But let's just say that you will notice a pattern.

Okay, gross, no. I watched up to the 45 second mark and had to click out. That girl was really uncomfortable. Very not okay.

I doubt that Biden thinks he was doing anything wrong. But that's part of the problem, isn't it?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Spiritual_Lobotomy on February 11, 2019, 01:39:20 PM
So, Senator Klobuchar entered the race.

Yes. And I am feeling pretty salty about endorsing her "genuine goodness as a human being" a few posts earlier. If you've read the huffpost article about the way she treats her employees it seems hard to make that case anymore.

"effective and respected bipartisan legislator" would have been accurate praise.

To be honest, I think this tanks her chances in a way that wouldn't hurt other candidates as much. For example Kamala Harris might be able survive this pretty well because it fits her brand. But Klobuchar's specific charisma is pretty evident in the way she titled her memoir - "The Senator Next Door" - Friendly, approachable.

Her response wasn't bad though. She admitted she was tough and has high expectations. Pretty much owned up to it without trying to wiggle out of it or offer some overcompensating and insincere apology.

Honestly, I'm looking at this through a different lens. I'm not sure why her being tough and having high expectations would tank her. Especially when the opposition is a pussy-grabbing, racist, misogynist serial cheater buffoon who lies like he breathes and is completely incompetent at his job, when he's not actively trying to destroy the pillars of the country.

"She's not as nice as I thought" isn't much of a deterrent to me. Especially when as a woman, I've been chastised to be "nice" countless times in my life, merely for being assertive in a leadership role.

Kris,  what are your thoughts on Keith Ellison and Al Franken?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Gin1984 on February 11, 2019, 01:40:35 PM
That video is suggesting that Biden is a paedophile?     All I see is a bunch of politicians posing for pictures with their families.

You are witnessing the rollout of the anti-Biden messaging. I was on a hike and heard a college-age guy say something to his girlfriend about "Creepy Joe Biden" so it's gaining some traction. 

In his campaign tactics, Trump will actually be behaving more like a typical republican than at any other time.  You are a corrupt businessman with a foundation that smells?  Accuse your opponent of the same thing.  You are a creepy pervert who hangs out with a child molester like Jeff Epstein, makes sex comments about your daughter, brags about grabbing women by the genitalia, and raw dogged a porn star?  Accuse your opposition of being creepy. 

It has worked before for him, so I guess it can work again.  I mean, I guess Biden is creepier than Warren or Klobuchar, but Trump is still beating him by a mile on the creep factor.

No one has accused Trump of messing with kids.

That's just a "hell no" zone that infuriates people of all political stripes.

And that video of Biden grabbing the girls' arms, pulling them right next to him, whispering to them, jokes about posing alone with them, stroking their hair, etc etc etc man that just made my Creep Factor alarm go off. I mean, in virtually every pic session, he makes sure the girl(s) are as close to him as humanly possible, and he pretty much ignores the boys.

I have a 13-year-old and if some dude, politician or not, stroked her hair and pulled her next to him, we would have words.

I'm not saying that he's necessarily anything beyond a handsy old man, but that's bad enough.

Except how Trump used to walk into the dressing rooms of the Miss Teen USA pageant.
And the accusation of raping a 13 year old girl....
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 11, 2019, 01:41:10 PM
So, Senator Klobuchar entered the race.

Yes. And I am feeling pretty salty about endorsing her "genuine goodness as a human being" a few posts earlier. If you've read the huffpost article about the way she treats her employees it seems hard to make that case anymore.

"effective and respected bipartisan legislator" would have been accurate praise.

To be honest, I think this tanks her chances in a way that wouldn't hurt other candidates as much. For example Kamala Harris might be able survive this pretty well because it fits her brand. But Klobuchar's specific charisma is pretty evident in the way she titled her memoir - "The Senator Next Door" - Friendly, approachable.

Her response wasn't bad though. She admitted she was tough and has high expectations. Pretty much owned up to it without trying to wiggle out of it or offer some overcompensating and insincere apology.

Honestly, I'm looking at this through a different lens. I'm not sure why her being tough and having high expectations would tank her. Especially when the opposition is a pussy-grabbing, racist, misogynist serial cheater buffoon who lies like he breathes and is completely incompetent at his job, when he's not actively trying to destroy the pillars of the country.

"She's not as nice as I thought" isn't much of a deterrent to me. Especially when as a woman, I've been chastised to be "nice" countless times in my life, merely for being assertive in a leadership role.

Kris,  what are your thoughts on Keith Ellison and Al Franken?

I'm not looking to derail this thread. I got accused of doing that yesterday in another one. This thread is about 2020 POTUS candidates.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Johnez on February 11, 2019, 02:45:45 PM
You can fast forward through some of it. But let's just say that you will notice a pattern.

Okay, gross, no. I watched up to the 45 second mark and had to click out. That girl was really uncomfortable. Very not okay.

I doubt that Biden thinks he was doing anything wrong. But that's part of the problem, isn't it?

That is the problem, IMO. It's fricken weird and hard to address. I've seen this exact behavior (and worse!) in families out in public. Creepy old uncle is a real thing.

I wouldn't say it's a disqualifier, but definitely gives pause and deserves scrutiny.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: TexasRunner on February 11, 2019, 04:13:28 PM
She did claim Native American heritage twice as far as we know, on  internal records only. And two other major groups of Cherokees don't seem to mind her claim of kinship.

Internal...  Sure...

(https://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2019/02/06/931/524/694940094001_5999220449001_5999209701001-vs.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Laserjet3051 on February 11, 2019, 04:18:06 PM
She did claim Native American heritage twice as far as we know, on  internal records only. And two other major groups of Cherokees don't seem to mind her claim of kinship.

Internal...  Sure...

(https://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2019/02/06/931/524/694940094001_5999220449001_5999209701001-vs.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)

Probably just an honest mistake? Right? Shouldn't we just give her the benefit of the doubt?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: anisotropy on February 11, 2019, 06:33:24 PM
Honestly, I'm looking at this through a different lens. I'm not sure why her being tough and having high expectations would tank her...
"She's not as nice as I thought" isn't much of a deterrent to me.

Quote
Especially given she is the most centrist of the Democratic candidates to announce. And that there are reasons for both the far left and the right to want to torpedo her candidacy as a result.

Really hate to admit it, but looks like I am in agreement with you again. Should I be concerned?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on February 12, 2019, 07:37:05 AM
She did claim Native American heritage twice as far as we know, on  internal records only. And two other major groups of Cherokees don't seem to mind her claim of kinship.

Internal...  Sure...

(https://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2019/02/06/931/524/694940094001_5999220449001_5999209701001-vs.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)

"The following is for statistical purposes only..." (read the small print on the yellow card over the area where Warren writes "American Indian")
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: libertarian4321 on February 13, 2019, 08:48:08 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."



Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: sherr 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: J Boogie 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.




Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: anisotropy 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: madgeylou 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris 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?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: anisotropy 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: anisotropy 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris 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.)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: sherr 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
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: anisotropy 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: andy85 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/
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: OurTown on February 13, 2019, 01:59:49 PM
Sweet Jesus God!  If you want policy, here's your guy:  https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: OurTown on February 13, 2019, 02:05:22 PM
Now if only the Republicans would nominate a woman named "Yin."
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on February 13, 2019, 04:45:09 PM
So, Governor Weld of Massachusetts may run for the Republican nomination.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise 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??
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: J Boogie 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).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: accolay 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache 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).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: soccerluvof4 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: davisgang90 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Davnasty 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.



Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 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! : - )
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Cressida 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: WhiteTrashCash 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on March 04, 2019, 09:31:12 AM
Looks like Hickenlooper is in.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: the_fixer 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

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on March 07, 2019, 02:28:51 PM
Sherrod Brown is out.

Biden is leaning in.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on March 08, 2019, 09:55:03 AM
Warren can raise that. Easily.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Johnez 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Johnez 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Ynari 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.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on March 11, 2019, 05:04:49 PM
I was talking to my DH about the 2020 candidates this weekend. And there's one criterion that attracts me to Biden that no one has, that would be particularly useful in this situation.

The White House is going to be in complete and utter effing chaos when Trump leaves it. His transition team was practically nonexistent, he's got a ton of people who have no freaking idea what they're doing in important positions... just imagine what kind of shitshow the next president-elect is going to wade into. God, what a nightmare transition. Biden, unique among all the candidates, would be able to deal with that chaos and impose order, much sooner, and much more effectively.

Honestly, that's not nothing.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Psychstache on March 11, 2019, 05:45:35 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 assume the delay had to do with his team furiously trying to make sure they can preemptively quash all the #metoo skeletons he has in his closet.

Edit: spelling
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Johnez on March 11, 2019, 06:16:11 PM
I'm coming around to Biden as well.  Beating Trump in 2020 is going to be a tall order, pulling the Ds to the polls has to be top priority.  Biden, maybe Warren can accomplish this. 

 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: madgeylou on March 11, 2019, 06:25:23 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 assume the delay had to do with his team furiously trying too make sure they can preemptively quash all the #metoo skeletons he has in his closet.

Yep. You know he has more than a few. He's one of those "extra friendly"-type dudes. I mean, I'll vote for him if he's the Democratic candidate ... shit, I'll vote for a bronze statue of The Fonz to get the Donald out ... but he is not my first choice, not at all.

That being said, I definitely count myself as part of the more progressive part of the party, and I really like what Waleed Shahid, communications director of the Justice Democrats, says at the end of this article (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-young-lefts-anti-capitalist-manifesto/):

When I asked Shahid if the new left movement was going to be the Democratsí version of the House Freedom Caucus, his answer was unequivocal: ďYes, it is.Ē

He had another historical example in mind, too: Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Republicans, a group of abolitionists who stridently pushed for Lincolnís Republican Party to abolish slavery. ďPolitics is still the art of compromise, you still have to pass legislation,Ē Shahid said. ďBut the idea is on whose terms is the compromise?Ē Every transformative president, he said, had found himself pushed into radical new policies by movements. (Ocasio-Cortez said something similar in a 60 Minutes interview that aired a few weeks after Shahid and I talked.) Abraham Lincoln had the abolitionists at his throat, Franklin Roosevelt had labor unions pushing for the New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson had civil rights leaders prodding him toward reforms of racist laws.

ďMaybe we can make Joe Biden into a Lincoln,Ē he said.


If a Democrat ends up in the White House, whoever it is, I intend to push them to be bolder and more progressive than they are today.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Versatile on March 11, 2019, 07:46:08 PM
Regarding Biden, I think it's the best decision the Dems can run with, especially if he chooses a respectable running mate such as Tulsi Gabbard. People will look fondly back at the Obama years if they liked him and Tulsi fits a lot of the criteria of the progressives: a fellow progressive, a woman, a person of color, and for what it's worth a Hindu. She's a veteran and handles herself very well in interviews, especially the hostile ones. Kris brings up a good point that Biden will know his way around already if he wins and I think people are tired of the drama surrounding Trump. Even if you like him it becomes exhausting staying current and people (Republicans) may want a change for that alone.


I also feel that if they nominate one of the progressives such as Bernie than they are giving it to Trump. Same with Kamala. She reminds me of Clinton, completely inauthentic. It's interesting how much backlash she has received from the Black community. Smoking weed listening to Tupac seems to approximate carrying hot sauce in her purse to a lot of people. Warren has completely played the Native American ancestry attacks incorrectly, plus she appears more of a lecturer than a leader. NOTE: this in no way insinuates that women cannot be leaders. Cory Booker, no way. All of the others don't stand out as of yet.

Is there any love for the Starbucks Man? As a person that leans conservative, fiscally this guy speaks my language. I find him refreshing when he talks dollars and cents but the mainstream seems to hate him.

Everything above is just my opinion and if I crapped on your candidate sorry.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Telecaster on March 12, 2019, 03:48:35 AM

Is there any love for the Starbucks Man? As a person that leans conservative, fiscally this guy speaks my language. I find him refreshing when he talks dollars and cents but the mainstream seems to hate him.

I fucking hate him. 

Where to begin?  You know how he keeps claiming Starbucks was the "first" company to give benefits to part time employees?  That's not true, for one.  And secondly it was a union negotiated benefit for the coffee roasters.   Then he later proudly busted the union.

Later, he turned a public park into his driveway, which created so much animosity with his neighbors he had to move.  Then, he mismanaged the Sonics for four years.  Apparently, the economics were such that he was losing money and he whined to the city for a new arena.   But the Sonics had just gotten a new arena remodel ten years before.  So the taxpayers weren't totally on board with subsidizing a hobby for a billionaire and there was some hesitation.  Now, he probably could have worked something out, but instead he whined about being "disprespected" (yes, really) by the city and the fans and promptly sold the team to an out of town ownership who moved them to Oklahoma City.  Had he tried he almost certainly could have found local ownership--like Steve Balmer who later bought the Clippers for $2 billion. 

But in his apology in his book, he said he went with the out of town owners because he thought they would have a better chance of extorting the city of out some money.   Look, I enjoy professional sports and the NBA in particular, but it is entertainment.  Maybe municipalities have some obligation to provide entertainment for their citizens, but subsidizing billionaires is perhaps not the wisest use of tax dollars.  And it isn't clear to me tax payer subsidies are even necessary.  Golden State for example is building a completely privately funded arena, and there are several other privately funded arenas as well.    The economics work without the taxpayer kicking in a whole lot. 

And then finally, what is he actually for?   All he does is spout off about things he is against, and how big ideas will never work.   That's exactly what I don't want in a leader. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on March 12, 2019, 05:46:49 AM
I'm surprised to see all of the love for Biden. His window was clearly 2016. He was the VP for a fairly popular President. Losing his son was tough, and I took him sincerely when he said that was why he didn't have the emotional energy for a campaign. But the game is too merciless if you don't take your chance when the window is open. I think an incumbent Trump is much tougher to beat than 2016 Trump, because now he has a record, and--while they have a distaste for parts of his personal life--evangelicals can look at that record of judge appointments and justify to themselves continuing it.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on March 12, 2019, 07:37:00 AM
The few polls I've seen seem to indicate that over half of those polled support either Biden or Sanders.  With perhaps a dozen announced candidates, that is a fairly large proportion.  Thoughts/comments?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate on March 12, 2019, 08:52:05 AM
The few polls I've seen seem to indicate that over half of those polled support either Biden or Sanders.  With perhaps a dozen announced candidates, that is a fairly large proportion.  Thoughts/comments?
That tells me that those are the two candidates who have national name recognition right now. As the debates, campaigns, and primaries occur, that will change.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate on March 12, 2019, 09:15:41 AM
I think an incumbent Trump is much tougher to beat than 2016 Trump, because now he has a record, and--while they have a distaste for parts of his personal life--evangelicals can look at that record of judge appointments and justify to themselves continuing it.
Indeed, I think Trump is going to be very difficult to defeat in 2020. The number one reason I would give would be the economy. Whether or not they actually deserve any credit or blame for economy, presidents usually get the credit or blame at election time. As an example, in the last 100 years, no sitting president has lost their bid for reelection when the unemployment rate was below 7%. Unemployment is currently at around 4%. To unseat Trump, the Democratic ticket is going to need every advantage they can get, and nominating an old white geezer from a non-swing state isn't the best of ideas.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Versatile on March 12, 2019, 09:33:56 AM

Is there any love for the Starbucks Man? As a person that leans conservative, fiscally this guy speaks my language. I find him refreshing when he talks dollars and cents but the mainstream seems to hate him.

I fucking hate him. 

Where to begin?  You know how he keeps claiming Starbucks was the "first" company to give benefits to part time employees?  That's not true, for one.  And secondly it was a union negotiated benefit for the coffee roasters.   Then he later proudly busted the union.

Later, he turned a public park into his driveway, which created so much animosity with his neighbors he had to move.  Then, he mismanaged the Sonics for four years.  Apparently, the economics were such that he was losing money and he whined to the city for a new arena.   But the Sonics had just gotten a new arena remodel ten years before.  So the taxpayers weren't totally on board with subsidizing a hobby for a billionaire and there was some hesitation.  Now, he probably could have worked something out, but instead he whined about being "disprespected" (yes, really) by the city and the fans and promptly sold the team to an out of town ownership who moved them to Oklahoma City.  Had he tried he almost certainly could have found local ownership--like Steve Balmer who later bought the Clippers for $2 billion. 

But in his apology in his book, he said he went with the out of town owners because he thought they would have a better chance of extorting the city of out some money.   Look, I enjoy professional sports and the NBA in particular, but it is entertainment.  Maybe municipalities have some obligation to provide entertainment for their citizens, but subsidizing billionaires is perhaps not the wisest use of tax dollars.  And it isn't clear to me tax payer subsidies are even necessary.  Golden State for example is building a completely privately funded arena, and there are several other privately funded arenas as well.    The economics work without the taxpayer kicking in a whole lot. 

And then finally, what is he actually for?   All he does is spout off about things he is against, and how big ideas will never work.   That's exactly what I don't want in a leader.

Interesting. I didn't know about all that.

I find his over-priced coffee distasteful as I can make a very good cup of coffee with my grinder and french press for much, much less than his store would charge. And I almost never read autobiographies as it is just a license for the author to cherry-pick.  I did watch a review of Kamala's book though and the podcaster noted that she never mentioned two things: Willie Brown or having lived in Canada during her childhood. Both would seem to be significant for a mention.

I guess what I do like about him is that he the only one that is willing to say we can't afford something instead of promising a bunch of silly concessions.  That our national debt has a cost. And that the Democrats have left a large number of their group behind, hence his independent run. And it also appears that he has done a lot for his employees in regards to education, insurance, and other benefits.

He's a mixed bag for sure.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on March 12, 2019, 11:26:29 AM
Versatile--

can you go into more detail about what you feel to be the "cost" of the national debt?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Johnez on March 12, 2019, 11:45:53 AM
Biden's getting closer to announcing, "top Democratic lawmaker" says he's going to run according to The Hill. I take it this is the trial balloon to see what happens.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/433659-exclusive-biden-to-run-for-white-house-says-dem-lawmaker?amp

Quote
"I'm giving it a shot," Biden said matter-of-factly during a phone call with a House Democratic lawmaker within the past week - a conversation the congressman recounted to The Hill and interpreted as a sure sign that Biden will run in 2020.

In the brief phone call, the former vice president asked if he could bounce some campaign strategy ideas off the lawmaker and invited the lawmaker to sit down with him in person in the near future. Biden also said he hoped to have the lawmaker's support, something the lawmaker did not commit to.

***

Biden did not share any details about when or where he planned to make his formal presidential announcement, the lawmaker said. Biden and his wife, Jill, just returned from vacation in St. Croix in the Caribbean, where they reportedly discussed potential pitfalls and began finalizing their plans, The Associated Press reported.

Biden spokesman Bill Russo refuted the idea that the former vice president is absolutely running: "He has not made a final decision. No change."
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Johnez on March 12, 2019, 11:59:09 AM
I can see Warren or Harris leveraging #metoo behind the scenes, but ultimately this is an election against Trump....and Biden isn't really the "lesser of two evils," more like an angel compared to Donald "Pussy grabber" Trump.

The economy is starting to look weaker. Trump keeps hammering away at the Fed chair, setting the groundwork for who to blame when a bad number comes up. We've got a record, yes-record- trade deficit now under Trump. What the hell happened? Trade wars aren't so easy to win after all? And then we have a pitiful jobs number, 20k? Looking like we've hit the peak of the Obama rise. I don't see the economy as Trump's strong point here. Biden was a part of the administration that saved the Auto industry, banking industry, and turned the economy around. Trump's main card is immigrants. That's it. This election is going to be uglier than the last.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Versatile on March 12, 2019, 12:01:48 PM
Versatile--

can you go into more detail about what you feel to be the "cost" of the national debt?

The easiest way to frame this is such:

The interest on the national debt is how much the federal government must pay on outstanding public debt each year. The current interest on the debt is $364 billion. That's from the federal budget for fiscal year 2019 (October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019).Jan 29, 2019
Interest on the National Debt: Definition, Calculation, Effect
https://www.thebalance.com/interest-on-the-national-debt-4119024

Now this of any pet project any various group would like to push. Would $364 billion towards that goal per annum accomplish much? I would think so. It's a huge opportunity cost.

We can't default on our obligations, as that would set a chain of events into motion that would be disastrous. And likewise, we can't print our way out of this either, as that also has negative ramifications. George W was extremely negligent in this area, as well as Obama, and now it looks like Trump will do no better. Shultz has been the only one to mention it as far as I am aware.

It's basically a tax on our children with the added bonus of opportunities lost.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on March 12, 2019, 01:15:46 PM
Thank you for your reply, Versatile.

The $364 billion number does indeed sound like a lot of money. But the same number was $199 billion in 1991. So over 28 years, it's barely doubled.

Over that time, the entire US economy has grown substantially, from $6,000 billion to over $18,000 billion in real output. Meanwhile, the US has provided many older investors a safe asset that has a small yield (in the form of these government bonds). Is there a debt level that would put you at greater ease?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Telecaster on March 12, 2019, 01:17:33 PM
The few polls I've seen seem to indicate that over half of those polled support either Biden or Sanders.  With perhaps a dozen announced candidates, that is a fairly large proportion.  Thoughts/comments?

People have heard of Biden and Sanders. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: MayDay on March 13, 2019, 08:00:11 AM
I am so uninterested in more old white men.  I will vote for whoever the D nom is unless I think they will be worse than Trump (which currently seems impossible).  But I will not be thrilled with Biden or Shouty McShoutface who only cares about free college tuition and has been a completely ineffective senator. 

Warren I like, but I think she is also too old.  So I age discriminate across all genders! 

I'm not in a hurry to worry too much about who I like at this point.  The only one I think is a real loon is Tulsi Gabbard.  More people will come in, and more info will come out about each.  I'll wait until things settle out some.  If I had to vote now, I'd pick Harris. 

I do think the candidates running on certain issues is great.  Will Inslee win? Highly unlikely.  But I'm all for him bringing climate change up and pushing the other candidates to say more. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on March 13, 2019, 08:25:49 AM
Tell me more about "too old"
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: MayDay on March 13, 2019, 08:39:39 AM
Tell me more about "too old"

80 by the end of the 2nd term sounds about right. 

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate on March 13, 2019, 09:23:55 AM
Tell me more about "too old"
80 by the end of the 2nd term sounds about right.
You're a lot more generous with the "too old" criteria than I am. Successful Democratic candidates tend to be younger (47, 46, 52, 43 at inauguration following first election for last four), so I put anything over 60 as being "too old" to run. I'm probably also being too generous as a 55 cut-off would be more in line with the historical trends.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Versatile on March 13, 2019, 10:16:37 AM
Thank you for your reply, Versatile.

The $364 billion number does indeed sound like a lot of money. But the same number was $199 billion in 1991. So over 28 years, it's barely doubled.

Over that time, the entire US economy has grown substantially, from $6,000 billion to over $18,000 billion in real output. Meanwhile, the US has provided many older investors a safe asset that has a small yield (in the form of these government bonds). Is there a debt level that would put you at greater ease?

It is a lot of money and it's just not a finite number but an opportunity cost, and a huge one at that.

I'm not an economist but the trends here are unmistakable:

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

If we are to double our national debt every eight years than I would pose the opposite question to you: at what level would you feel comfortable allowing the debt to grow? One trillion plus one trillion is a 100% increase as well as 22 trillion plus 22 trillion, but they are vastly different in scope. Because at some point the economy, which I think is vastly over-valued, will not be able to absorb the debt to GDP ratio.

I would feel comfortable not doubling the debt each presidential tenure to answer your question. Trump has failed miserably here so far just as Obama and Bush did with their time in office.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on March 13, 2019, 11:39:21 AM
I don't get the Biden lovefest.

He's as old as Bernie.

He's a three-time presidential race loser.

The video of him touching girls at a photo shoot (I watched it) are beyond creepy.

He has a long history of questionable decision-making and gaffes (and recently called Pence something like "a good guy" when in reality Pence is a POS).

And let's not even get into Anita Hill, crime bill, etc, you know, substantive stuff.

YES he is better than Trump. A million times better. But so are ALL the other Dems running.

Again, like everyone else here (I think), I'll vote for whoever wins the Dem primary and become their biggest cheerleader and will give them money.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on March 13, 2019, 11:42:37 AM
This is a great chart! Would you say the decade of the 1980's were successful, economically?

I would argue that they were. Yet the debt as share of GDP increased during that decade.

Also, the chart has a blip from 2018 to 2019 where it dances between 99% of GDP and 108% of GDP. Since the deficit is only 4.5% of GDP, how could that be changing so fast?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Johnez on March 13, 2019, 01:16:30 PM
^
The "power of compound interest" at work?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on March 13, 2019, 02:14:59 PM
Thank you for your reply, Versatile.

The $364 billion number does indeed sound like a lot of money. But the same number was $199 billion in 1991. So over 28 years, it's barely doubled.

Over that time, the entire US economy has grown substantially, from $6,000 billion to over $18,000 billion in real output. Meanwhile, the US has provided many older investors a safe asset that has a small yield (in the form of these government bonds). Is there a debt level that would put you at greater ease?

It is a lot of money and it's just not a finite number but an opportunity cost, and a huge one at that.

I'm not an economist but the trends here are unmistakable:

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

If we are to double our national debt every eight years than I would pose the opposite question to you: at what level would you feel comfortable allowing the debt to grow? One trillion plus one trillion is a 100% increase as well as 22 trillion plus 22 trillion, but they are vastly different in scope. Because at some point the economy, which I think is vastly over-valued, will not be able to absorb the debt to GDP ratio.

I would feel comfortable not doubling the debt each presidential tenure to answer your question. Trump has failed miserably here so far just as Obama and Bush did with their time in office.
The one time in that chart that the debt-gdp ratio dropped was in the late 40s through 50s. During that time the marginal tax rate on the top brackets went up to 90%+. Trump did exactly the opposite of this (and McConnel, of course). This did little to improve the economy as a whole and fucked the budget.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on March 14, 2019, 07:56:08 AM
So Beto made it official yesterday. Who's left who hasn't officially announced besides Biden? Anyone?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on March 14, 2019, 08:30:07 AM
I would guess Biden will be it.

(Although a tiny nerdish part of me wants Chris Evans/Captain America to be someone's VP.)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: OurTown on March 14, 2019, 08:51:42 AM
Biden will essentially complete the field.  So here is your top tier, left to right:  Sanders, Warren, Harris, Biden, Beto.  The others will be interesting "also-rans."  It should be a good primary.  I'm not a fan of Bernie Sanders but I'm fine with the other four.  Harris is the best pick, IMO. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: JetBlast on March 14, 2019, 10:41:06 AM
As a liberal leaning independent, candidates like Klobuchar and OíRourke have more appeal to me than much of this crop of Democrats. I need to dig more into Inslee and Hickenlooper to view their records as governors.

I could see voting for Biden as a steady hand caretaker just to get Trump out of office. The rest of the field hasnít impressed me too much yet, but apart from Sanders and Warren, they havenít turned me off yet either. Iíll vote third party or write in before I vote for Sanders.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: madgeylou on March 14, 2019, 12:34:44 PM
As a liberal leaning independent, candidates like Klobuchar and OíRourke have more appeal to me than much of this crop of Democrats. I need to dig more into Inslee and Hickenlooper to view their records as governors.

I could see voting for Biden as a steady hand caretaker just to get Trump out of office. The rest of the field hasnít impressed me too much yet, but apart from Sanders and Warren, they havenít turned me off yet either. Iíll vote third party or write in before I vote for Sanders.

Bernie's not my favorite either but damn I will vote for him gladly he's the nominee. Literally any animal, vegetable, or mineral is better than the Donald.

Warren and Harris are my front runners. I'm impressed with Warren's policy proposals and with Harris's demeanor and overall competence.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on March 14, 2019, 02:00:55 PM
As a liberal leaning independent, candidates like Klobuchar and OíRourke have more appeal to me than much of this crop of Democrats. I need to dig more into Inslee and Hickenlooper to view their records as governors.

I could see voting for Biden as a steady hand caretaker just to get Trump out of office. The rest of the field hasnít impressed me too much yet, but apart from Sanders and Warren, they havenít turned me off yet either. Iíll vote third party or write in before I vote for Sanders.

Bernie's not my favorite either but damn I will vote for him gladly he's the nominee. Literally any animal, vegetable, or mineral is better than the Donald.

Warren and Harris are my front runners. I'm impressed with Warren's policy proposals and with Harris's demeanor and overall competence.

Harris has really impressed me with her temperament and the way she handles interviews. I like her a lot. She's my top pick at the moment. I agree with OurTown, though - it should be a good primary, and I like all of the candidates. (Something about Gillibrand rubs me the wrong way, but she's pretty much already an also-ran. Her campaign is getting no traction.)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on March 14, 2019, 07:49:59 PM
I like Beto O'Rourke because he surpassed Hillary Clinton's vote in major Texas metro areas by 6 percentage points.
These major cities of Texas continue to grow in population with respect to the rest of Texas.
Consequently, it's likely that Beto O'Rourke could cause Texas to flip to the Democratic column.
Ted Cruz only beat Beto O'Rourke by 220,000 votes.
Merely increasing the voter turnout in one of Texas' large metro areas could have flipped the election.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-beto-orourke-shifted-the-map-in-texas/

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Psychstache on March 15, 2019, 07:04:26 AM
I like Beto O'Rourke because he surpassed Hillary Clinton's vote in major Texas metro areas by 6 percentage points.
These major cities of Texas continue to grow in population with respect to the rest of Texas.
Consequently, it's likely that Beto O'Rourke could cause Texas to flip to the Democratic column.
Ted Cruz only beat Beto O'Rourke by 220,000 votes.
Merely increasing the voter turnout in one of Texas' large metro areas could have flipped the election.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-beto-orourke-shifted-the-map-in-texas/

Beto's Senate run was very impressive, the problem is the the Republican controlled state government also noticed and is taking steps to address this via voter roll purges. Their first attempt was a boondoggle that got called out by the media, but they have plenty of time to refine their methods and try again.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on March 15, 2019, 08:49:21 AM
Beto's run generated a lot of excitement in Texas. But I'd appreciate arguments for him based on his positions on issues. He was very daft in speaking about the kneeling/standing for the anthem thing in the NFL. How would he run an economy? Conduct the NK negotiations? address the Paris Climate agreement? Has he been very specific on these?

Because to do as well as he did in TX, you have to be vague, as his positions on many of these things were not state-wide winners.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: madgeylou on March 15, 2019, 09:47:43 AM
@talltexan -- exactly. I haven't heard much substantive talk from Beto, charming and handsome though he may be.

This article about Beto has a very click-baity antagonistic title but if folks are able to look past that and read it, you all may find its arguments compelling. I sure did.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/03/beto-orourke-is-the-candidate-for-vapid-morons.html
 (https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/03/beto-orourke-is-the-candidate-for-vapid-morons.html)

Of course I will vote for Beto if he wins the primary, but there doesn't seem to be very much in there, if you ask me.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on March 15, 2019, 10:07:39 AM
@talltexan -- exactly. I haven't heard much substantive talk from Beto, charming and handsome though he may be.

This article about Beto has a very click-baity antagonistic title but if folks are able to look past that and read it, you all may find its arguments compelling. I sure did.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/03/beto-orourke-is-the-candidate-for-vapid-morons.html
 (https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/03/beto-orourke-is-the-candidate-for-vapid-morons.html)

Of course I will vote for Beto if he wins the primary, but there doesn't seem to be very much in there, if you ask me.

Beto is near the very bottom of the list, for me. A quote I read earlier today, which seems apt:

"
Beto has all of Obamaís self-assurance with none of his intellectual fortitude, inspirational biography, or oratory power."

He feels like pretty thin broth, to me. And as I said on the 2020 poll post that Nick_Miller started, I'm feeling like a relative lack of experience is more problematic in 2020 than it might have been in previous election cycles. Because the person who wins this election is going to inherit an absolute shitshow of a White House -- their transition team will have next to no help from the Trump administration because no one knows what the hell they're doing.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: wenchsenior on March 15, 2019, 10:46:34 AM
@talltexan -- exactly. I haven't heard much substantive talk from Beto, charming and handsome though he may be.

This article about Beto has a very click-baity antagonistic title but if folks are able to look past that and read it, you all may find its arguments compelling. I sure did.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/03/beto-orourke-is-the-candidate-for-vapid-morons.html
 (https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/03/beto-orourke-is-the-candidate-for-vapid-morons.html)

Of course I will vote for Beto if he wins the primary, but there doesn't seem to be very much in there, if you ask me.

Beto is near the very bottom of the list, for me. A quote I read earlier today, which seems apt:

"
Beto has all of Obamaís self-assurance with none of his intellectual fortitude, inspirational biography, or oratory power."

He feels like pretty thin broth, to me. And as I said on the 2020 poll post that Nick_Miller started, I'm feeling like a relative lack of experience is more problematic in 2020 than it might have been in previous election cycles. Because the person who wins this election is going to inherit an absolute shitshow of a White House -- their transition team will have next to no help from the Trump administration because no one knows what the hell they're doing.

Same.  I have nothing against him, and long campaigns will tell us a great deal, but at the moment he's down near the bottom of my  tentative list.   
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on March 15, 2019, 02:10:00 PM
People were saying Obama seemed like "thin broth" in 2008 during the primary against Clinton. But somehow, we got here.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on March 15, 2019, 02:17:40 PM
People were saying Obama seemed like "thin broth" in 2008 during the primary against Clinton. But somehow, we got here.

I'm not sure it's quite the same. Yes, there were people citing his lack of experience. However, Obama was an exceptional candidate, an exceptional orator, and exceptionally intelligent.

Hence, the quote I cited above.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on March 15, 2019, 07:41:59 PM
I do like Elizabeth Warren's idea for a wealth tax and for universal Pre-K.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: JetBlast on March 16, 2019, 03:03:45 PM
As a liberal leaning independent, candidates like Klobuchar and OíRourke have more appeal to me than much of this crop of Democrats. I need to dig more into Inslee and Hickenlooper to view their records as governors.

I could see voting for Biden as a steady hand caretaker just to get Trump out of office. The rest of the field hasnít impressed me too much yet, but apart from Sanders and Warren, they havenít turned me off yet either. Iíll vote third party or write in before I vote for Sanders.

Bernie's not my favorite either but damn I will vote for him gladly he's the nominee. Literally any animal, vegetable, or mineral is better than the Donald.

Bernieís economic policies scare the hell out of me.  Iím not voting for that.

Donald Trump is a mysoginistic blowhard that will also not get my vote.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on March 16, 2019, 03:39:13 PM
I just listened to Andrew Gillum on Real Time with Bill Maher. Andrew Gillum really presents himself well, he's very articulate, intelligent, and relatable. He almost won the Florida race for governor, and if the many voters hadn't been disenfranchised in that state he would have won.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on March 18, 2019, 02:52:51 PM
Pete Buttigieg is a really thoughtful guy, and he does have executive experience. The more I see, the more I like him, though I'm not ready to pick a candidate yet.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/2019/01/23/presidential-election-2020-south-bend-mayor-pete-buttigieg-joins/2655243002/
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on March 19, 2019, 10:40:20 AM
I am liking Mayor Pete better all the time the more I see of him.

Incredibly likable and smart and articulate. I might like him better than any of the other candidates. He's Ivy league, former military, gay, a millennial, has executive experience, and as I said very likable. He checks a lot of boxes. He could make a splash at the debates.

I still love Bernie, but I am coming to the conclusion that he will lose momentum over the coming months. He just looks soooo old compared to Mayor Pete, Tulsi, Beto, Harris, Booker, etc. The debate stage will probably not be kind to Bernie. Last time, it was one on one, he was clearly the more authentic candidate, and hell Hillary wasn't much younger. This time, you have all of these fresh faces, many with progressive platforms.

However I can already see the Twittersphere burning up with stupid jokes about Mayor Pete (who is gay and who also has a last name that starts with "Butt")
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: turketron on March 19, 2019, 11:19:38 AM
Yeah, I really like Buttigieg. I don't know that he's my first choice (yet) but I threw him $5 to help him make it to the first primary debate. Even if he doesn't make it very far this time, I'm willing to bet this isn't the last we've heard from him. I've listened to a couple interviews with him now and his answers, especially to questions regarding his age/experience, are on point.

If you haven't heard him speak yet, here's a good one: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/wnyc/stay-tuned-with-preet/e/59269733
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: JetBlast on March 19, 2019, 02:50:33 PM
New article on FiveThirtyEight that discusses some of Betoís positions.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-does-beto-orourke-believe/

I donít agree with all of it, but very strongly agree in eliminating the death penalty and for-profit prisons, and I want the bail system massively reformed. I also think the public option is a more viable path forward for healthcare reform at this time. Perhaps single payer becomes fesable when people see that the public option isnít all about death panels and substandard medical treatment.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on March 21, 2019, 03:58:29 PM
Apparently there is an Axios story that Biden is considering entering the race with a VP candidate already chosen (Stacey Abrams):

https://www.axios.com/2020-presidential-election-joe-biden-stacey-abrams-vp-54472f8f-5bb2-4d1f-bc7c-0544a09ebba5.html

I think Abrams would be a good VP pick for Biden and I think it could create some needed buzz for him if he announces his entry to the race that way.  But I question the wisdom of choosing a running mate so early.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Johnez on March 21, 2019, 04:28:37 PM
^If true, definitely a step in the right direction. Glad to see Abrams considered.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Daisy on March 21, 2019, 10:24:19 PM
I normally don't opine on politics on this forum, but I am a big Tulsi Gabbard fan. She is the only candidate I have seen that has announced candidacy that is fiercely anti-interventionist.

I have noticed in these comments and on another thread that was started that many Democrats don't like her, or are outright ignoring her as a candidate.

However, independents seem to like her a lot more. I think she would widen the base of voters that otherwise wouldn't vote Dem and may just defer to Trump if the Dem candidate seems too lefty for them.

I agree with a previous poster that she would be the strongest against Trump. She is not easily bullied. See her interviews.

Trump already has nicknames for almost all of the other Dems on the candidate list and I don't see how they have countered his bullying well.

I don't agree with all of her positions, but in my opinion being anti-war/anti-interventionist is the biggest issue. No other candidate other than Bernie brings up the issue.

It's either Tulsi or a third party candidate for me, from what I see so far.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on March 21, 2019, 11:19:12 PM
I respect you and your political views, @Daisy.  I am generally anti-war also.  But I do wonder how many people share your priority about anti-war being first on the list.  I think a lot of people think "standing up to Trump" is important.  But climate change and tax policy and immigration seem to be higher up on most people's list than being anti-war.

Another thing that I wonder where it ranks with people these days is the question of qualifications.  Clinton was regularly praised for being very qualified, and Trump was often criticized for his lack of qualifications.  But now I hear people talking positively about O'Rourke and Abrams and Buttegeig, all of whom are more qualified than I am to be President but are not the historically common Governors, Senators, or Generals.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate on March 22, 2019, 07:37:39 AM
I respect you and your political views, @Daisy.  I am generally anti-war also.  But I do wonder how many people share your priority about anti-war being first on the list.  I think a lot of people think "standing up to Trump" is important.  But climate change and tax policy and immigration seem to be higher up on most people's list than being anti-war.
Do you think being anti-war is going to be a winning differentiator against Trump? While Trump tweets like a hawk, his actions are remarkedly dovish. For example, there's the meeting in North Korea, pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan (against the Sec. Def's recommendation), the tiny U.S.-British-French response when Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, and so on.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on March 22, 2019, 09:42:22 AM
Buttegieg indeed sounds impressive.

But are we really in the world where being a mayor is enough to become President? A man of his heft ought to demonstrate he can win state-wide in Wisconsin, become a governor or Senator, then build from there.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on March 22, 2019, 09:49:57 AM
Buttegieg indeed sounds impressive.

But are we really in the world where being a mayor is enough to become President? A man of his heft ought to demonstrate he can win state-wide in Wisconsin, become a governor or Senator, then build from there.

After a guy with literally no experience got elected... maybe.

And don't forget there are people who think Howard Schultz would be awesome, too. A guy who also has zero experience.

I'd like to believe the Democrats are better than to hire someone with no qualifications. Mayor is pretty low on the list, thought. I agree that I think it'd be great for him to seek higher office first. Plus, that would build him some name recognition so people would actually know how to pronounce his name, and not automatically see/think: "BUTT-GEEG."

Because people are shallow as hell.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on March 22, 2019, 10:21:54 AM
I respect you and your political views, @Daisy.  I am generally anti-war also.  But I do wonder how many people share your priority about anti-war being first on the list.  I think a lot of people think "standing up to Trump" is important.  But climate change and tax policy and immigration seem to be higher up on most people's list than being anti-war.
Do you think being anti-war is going to be a winning differentiator against Trump? While Trump tweets like a hawk, his actions are remarkedly dovish. For example, there's the meeting in North Korea, pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan (against the Sec. Def's recommendation), the tiny U.S.-British-French response when Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, and so on.

I really have no sense of the country's overall current pro- or anti-war opinion and haven't seen any polls on the subject lately.  Just for myself, it seems like we are at a relatively peaceful time currently.  Since we don't have a Vietnam-like situation currently, I think being anti-war is less salient to the election conversation.

I think in general with so many candidates in the race, every candidate needs to look at it as a two stage process - how to stand out and win the Democratic nomination, and then how to win against Trump.  At best, being anti-war may help ever so slightly in the first stage, and will be drowned out by other issues in the second.

I don't think Senator Gabbard can win the nomination.  Personally I think Senator Harris has the best chance to win against Trump, although I don't know how she will fare in the primary.  I suspect she will do well, and there are some indications that she is a top-tier candidate, but it's really hard to predict how things will ultimately turn out this early.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate on March 22, 2019, 11:02:23 AM
Buttegieg indeed sounds impressive. But are we really in the world where being a mayor is enough to become President? A man of his heft ought to demonstrate he can win state-wide in Wisconsin, become a governor or Senator, then build from there.
If Buttegieg, as an Indiana Hoosier, wins state-wide in Wisconsin, then he's certainly destined for greatness.*

Pence's election as VP likely doomed Buttegieg's chances of becoming governor of Indiana for the foreseeable future since Pence's replacement is much more moderate (i.e., less religious). As shown by Donnelley's election in 2012, and Obama winning the state in 2008, Democrats can win statewide in Indiana, but it takes the right set of circumstances. With (relatively) moderate Holcomb in the Governor's mansion and Braun/Young as Senators, Buttegieg is stuck likely stuck at the local level in Indiana.

**The mix up is understandable, as Indiana and Wisconsin are basically interchangeable like Texas and Oklahoma.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Abe on March 22, 2019, 10:03:18 PM
I normally don't opine on politics on this forum, but I am a big Tulsi Gabbard fan. She is the only candidate I have seen that has announced candidacy that is fiercely anti-interventionist.

I don't agree with all of her positions, but in my opinion being anti-war/anti-interventionist is the biggest issue. No other candidate other than Bernie brings up the issue.

It's either Tulsi or a third party candidate for me, from what I see so far.

Though I agree that we shouldn't get involved in other countries' bullshit, she is also the only candidate that met with a known war criminal, four years after confirmed use of chemical weapons on civilians. Literally all that needs to be done to capsize her campaign is reference her and Assad. Someone with that lack of judgement or inability to grasp basic political optics shouldn't be our president. We've had enough of those types of leaders.

If she somehow won the nomination, which I think is extremely unlikely, I'd vote for a third party candidate.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Daisy on March 23, 2019, 10:37:09 AM
I really have no sense of the country's overall current pro- or anti-war opinion and haven't seen any polls on the subject lately.  Just for myself, it seems like we are at a relatively peaceful time currently.  Since we don't have a Vietnam-like situation currently, I think being anti-war is less salient to the election conversation.

That's probably because the US's interventionist policies are not covered much on US news outlets and other than those in the military being deployed multiple times on long tours of duty, most citizens don't see or feel the disastrous effects of our war policy. Not to mention the poor souls being bombed on.

Afghanistan (longest war in US history), Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia...and those are just the overt interventionist struggles we are involved in.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Daisy on March 23, 2019, 10:39:59 AM
I normally don't opine on politics on this forum, but I am a big Tulsi Gabbard fan. She is the only candidate I have seen that has announced candidacy that is fiercely anti-interventionist.

I don't agree with all of her positions, but in my opinion being anti-war/anti-interventionist is the biggest issue. No other candidate other than Bernie brings up the issue.

It's either Tulsi or a third party candidate for me, from what I see so far.

Though I agree that we shouldn't get involved in other countries' bullshit, she is also the only candidate that met with a known war criminal, four years after confirmed use of chemical weapons on civilians. Literally all that needs to be done to capsize her campaign is reference her and Assad. Someone with that lack of judgement or inability to grasp basic political optics shouldn't be our president. We've had enough of those types of leaders.

If she somehow won the nomination, which I think is extremely unlikely, I'd vote for a third party candidate.

Because dropping bombs on other countries and removing their leaders has yielded such great results so far...

She is hardly the only US political figure to have met with Assad. Words and negotiations over bombs.

Oh well I have gotten too far into political discourse on this forum than I feel comfortable with. Cheers.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: OurTown on March 25, 2019, 10:49:47 AM
Tusli Gabbard?  No thanks, hard pass.  Bernie?  Meh. 

All of the other leading Democratic candidates are really awesome.  Looking forward to some substantive policy debates over the next 11 months.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on March 25, 2019, 12:12:36 PM
I know the trolls are out in force on Twitter, but generally speaking, the candidates' posts get mostly positive comments. See Pete, Harris, Bernie, Beto, etc. It's mostly supporters.

But Kirsten Gillibrand? She is getting ROASTED alive on Twitter, and it looks to be 99% Dems (Republicans simply don't even care about her). Her latest Tweets are only asking for a $1! (trying to get the non-corporate contributions up I guess) and people are NOT having it.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate on March 25, 2019, 12:23:06 PM
But Kirsten Gillibrand? She is getting ROASTED alive on Twitter, and it looks to be 99% Dems (Republicans simply don't even care about her). Her latest Tweets are only asking for a $1! (trying to get the non-corporate contributions up I guess) and people are NOT having it.
She's trying to qualify for the first round of debates by reaching 65,000 unique contributors. She's not quite as desperate as Delaney's "I'll give $2 if you give $1" ploy. At least, not yet.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/candidates-reach-for-the-magic-ticket-to-democratic-debates-65000-donors/2019/03/19/9a1f80e0-4a4b-11e9-9663-00ac73f49662_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.365769c6b27b (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/candidates-reach-for-the-magic-ticket-to-democratic-debates-65000-donors/2019/03/19/9a1f80e0-4a4b-11e9-9663-00ac73f49662_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.365769c6b27b)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on March 25, 2019, 12:39:25 PM
But Kirsten Gillibrand? She is getting ROASTED alive on Twitter, and it looks to be 99% Dems (Republicans simply don't even care about her). Her latest Tweets are only asking for a $1! (trying to get the non-corporate contributions up I guess) and people are NOT having it.
She's trying to qualify for the first round of debates by reaching 65,000 unique contributors. She's not quite as desperate as Delaney's "I'll give $2 if you give $1" ploy. At least, not yet.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/candidates-reach-for-the-magic-ticket-to-democratic-debates-65000-donors/2019/03/19/9a1f80e0-4a4b-11e9-9663-00ac73f49662_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.365769c6b27b (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/candidates-reach-for-the-magic-ticket-to-democratic-debates-65000-donors/2019/03/19/9a1f80e0-4a4b-11e9-9663-00ac73f49662_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.365769c6b27b)

Yup. That looks to be it. I guess she'll likely make it, but geez that is pretty lame that a sitting Senator has to beg for $1 contributions when Mayor Pete blew past that number with one appearance.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on March 25, 2019, 02:30:36 PM
But Kirsten Gillibrand? She is getting ROASTED alive on Twitter, and it looks to be 99% Dems (Republicans simply don't even care about her). Her latest Tweets are only asking for a $1! (trying to get the non-corporate contributions up I guess) and people are NOT having it.
She's trying to qualify for the first round of debates by reaching 65,000 unique contributors. She's not quite as desperate as Delaney's "I'll give $2 if you give $1" ploy. At least, not yet.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/candidates-reach-for-the-magic-ticket-to-democratic-debates-65000-donors/2019/03/19/9a1f80e0-4a4b-11e9-9663-00ac73f49662_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.365769c6b27b (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/candidates-reach-for-the-magic-ticket-to-democratic-debates-65000-donors/2019/03/19/9a1f80e0-4a4b-11e9-9663-00ac73f49662_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.365769c6b27b)

Yup. That looks to be it. I guess she'll likely make it, but geez that is pretty lame that a sitting Senator has to beg for $1 contributions when Mayor Pete blew past that number with one appearance.

I am probably less excited about Gillibrand than any other notable Democratic candidate. She comes across as an insincere political opportunist, and apparently I'm not the only person who feels this way. Her campaign is dead in the water.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Abe on March 25, 2019, 08:13:28 PM
Tusli Gabbard?  No thanks, hard pass.  Bernie?  Meh. 

All of the other leading Democratic candidates are really awesome.  Looking forward to some substantive policy debates over the next 11 months.

I agree with you. They have strong positions, hopefully it won't be a slide to the left because that won't help get the independents and moderate Republicans needed to win the general election. That being said, talk is cheap, but no talk is cheaper than a politician's statements during a primary run.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on March 26, 2019, 07:58:20 AM
Don't look now, but Mayor Pete has somehow surged to third place in Iowa polls. Obviously way way way too early to mean anything, BUT I'd sure rather be at 11 percent than 1 or 2 percent like many of the others. He'll use these poll numbers to step up his fundraising; he needs to convince people that he's actually electable (his biggest obstacle as I see it), and these numbers surely help a little.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/435520-buttigieg-surges-to-third-place-in-new-iowa-poll

Edited to add: As I writer, I always have to think about satisfying plots. So I will say that clearly the young, gay, clean cut, scholarly veteran who works as a smallish town mayor going up against the old, lecherous, snake oil salesman/draft dodger who builds shrines to himself would CLEARLY be the most entertaining story choice.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: v8rx7guy on April 01, 2019, 11:23:25 AM
What's everyone's opinion on the Biden "inappropriate touching / awkward kiss" allegation?  It honestly would not surprise me considering the video that was posted upthread.  Is this enough to take him out of the running?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Davnasty on April 01, 2019, 11:39:22 AM
What's everyone's opinion on the Biden "inappropriate touching / awkward kiss" allegation?  It honestly would not surprise me considering the video that was posted upthread.  Is this enough to take him out of the running?

My take on it is that it doesn't really affect my personal opinion of him but it is enough that I don't like him as a candidate. I worry it could have a significant impact on his image. If I was a big fan, I'd probably overlook this but I like other candidates more.

The reason I don't find it to be that big of a deal is that I think he is sincere when he says he didn't realize what he was doing. I've known other people from his generation who do similar touchy stuff like that and I don't think they're doing it to hurt anyone or get personal pleasure from it, they're just weird. I still acknowledge that he made someone else uncomfortable and that matters, but I don't think it makes him a bad person.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on April 01, 2019, 11:52:31 AM
What's everyone's opinion on the Biden "inappropriate touching / awkward kiss" allegation?  It honestly would not surprise me considering the video that was posted upthread.  Is this enough to take him out of the running?

I heard an interesting conjecture about Biden in one of the Sunday afternoon political talk shows.  Someone opined that former Vice President Biden might very well prefer to go down in history as a beloved VP and Senator "rather than a three time presidential hopeful loser".  I wonder if that is what is preventing him from running this time (there are other factors) - with so many candidates even if he is in the lead now, who knows what will happen over the next year or so?

On the inappropriate touching stuff, I don't think this particular episode is a big deal, but I think it is an opening salvo in what will be a drip-drip-drip effort over time to take him out of the running.  I would expect more stories from more people, especially if he enters the race formally.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on April 01, 2019, 12:03:24 PM
I'm definitely looking for a stark contrast to the "creepy old white dude" for the next the White House occupant. The latest revelations about Biden only confirm my existing opinion of him. He's just not the right guy for this moment. Wish him the best, but he needs to stay out of this race.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate on April 01, 2019, 12:25:04 PM
My opinion is that the "inappropriate touching / awkward kiss" allegations would not be enough to get anyone to switch their votes in the general election from D to R. However, it probably is enough to measurably lower voter turnout in female ages 18-30 demographic, and that alone is fatal to any Democratic contender. Hopefully Biden will realize this sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on April 06, 2019, 11:01:56 PM
Tim Ryan, US Representative from Ohio, announced his candidacy today.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: jrhampt on April 07, 2019, 06:07:10 AM
I think the Biden ďscandalĒ is the most ridiculous non-scandal that people are trying to turn into a big thing.  Itís not.  Iím not even particularly a Biden fan - I think heís too old for the presidency.  But his being a friendly, sometimes weirdly demonstrative guy has nothing to do with that.  We have a walking scandal generator in the White House and for a full week I canít turn on the news without hearing analysis of how Biden sniffed someoneís hair?  Itís petty nonsense.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: MayDay on April 07, 2019, 06:34:09 AM
Men giving "too friendly" hugs may indeed come from a place of kindness and positive intent, and may indeed have been normal a d acceptable behavior.

But that doesn't make it ok, and the fact that he doesn't seem to realize that it's not about HIS intent, it's about how the people he touches feel, is what is problematic.

Yes, the world is full of creepy grandpa's who mean well. That doesn't make it less creepy for those of us getting touched.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: jrhampt on April 07, 2019, 06:48:12 AM
Men giving "too friendly" hugs may indeed come from a place of kindness and positive intent, and may indeed have been normal a d acceptable behavior.

But that doesn't make it ok, and the fact that he doesn't seem to realize that it's not about HIS intent, it's about how the people he touches feel, is what is problematic.

Yes, the world is full of creepy grandpa's who mean well. That doesn't make it less creepy for those of us getting touched.

Sure, but itís just not newsworthy.  Also, he appears to be an equal-opportunity offender of both sexes.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: MayDay on April 07, 2019, 08:50:06 AM
Men giving "too friendly" hugs may indeed come from a place of kindness and positive intent, and may indeed have been normal a d acceptable behavior.

But that doesn't make it ok, and the fact that he doesn't seem to realize that it's not about HIS intent, it's about how the people he touches feel, is what is problematic.

Yes, the world is full of creepy grandpa's who mean well. That doesn't make it less creepy for those of us getting touched.

Sure, but itís just not newsworthy.  Also, he appears to be an equal-opportunity offender of both sexes.

How is it not newsworthy? How does the gender of the victim matter?

Sure it's not newsworthy compared to Trump's antics, but that isn't the best bar against which to measure appropriate behavior.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: jrhampt on April 07, 2019, 10:21:32 AM
Men giving "too friendly" hugs may indeed come from a place of kindness and positive intent, and may indeed have been normal a d acceptable behavior.

But that doesn't make it ok, and the fact that he doesn't seem to realize that it's not about HIS intent, it's about how the people he touches feel, is what is problematic.

Yes, the world is full of creepy grandpa's who mean well. That doesn't make it less creepy for those of us getting touched.

Sure, but itís just not newsworthy.  Also, he appears to be an equal-opportunity offender of both sexes.

How is it not newsworthy? How does the gender of the victim matter?

Sure it's not newsworthy compared to Trump's antics, but that isn't the best bar against which to measure appropriate behavior.

Because itís the equivalent of tabloid gossip on a slow news day?  Itís just being given a disproportionate amount of airtime right now.  To me, the fact that he doesnít single out women for this treatment reinforces the fact that itís not a sexist/sexual/patronizing set of behaviors. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: jrhampt on April 07, 2019, 10:33:13 AM
Along the same lines, I also have zero interest in analyzing exactly what percentage Native American is Elizabeth Warren and whether or not Amy Klobuchar is a mean boss who once ate her salad with a comb.  Itís utterly trivial.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on April 07, 2019, 11:12:07 AM
Along the same lines, I also have zero interest in analyzing exactly what percentage Native American is Elizabeth Warren and whether or not Amy Klobuchar is a mean boss who once ate her salad with a comb.  Itís utterly trivial.

On all of these things I think it is an ongoing political war of attrition and a game of momentum.  It's also checking what "sticks" with voters.  If the hair-smelling thing gets a little traction in the media, and then other women come forward saying they had a bad experience with him, then a voter may develop a general vague sense of distrust of him, which may be enough to sway the voter to another candidate.  And early on, one needs to generate some momentum to make it out of the 1%-of-the-polls (or not-even-mentioned-as-an-option-in-the-polls) group, so one can win or place in an early caucus state, so one can be seen as a frontrunner, and so on.

I think the process by which the DNC will select who gets to the debate stages is interesting.  Somehow I suspect that it will get criticized later, especially the random selection part.  (Personally I don't have any problems with any of the debate selection process, but I think the media will criticize it after the first debate or two.)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 08, 2019, 07:51:24 AM
New Massachusetts poll out.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ma/massachusetts_democratic_presidential_primary-6786.html

To me, the real story here is Mayor Pete. Just 3 percentage points back from Warren? He's in double digits.

And speaking of Warren, how demoralizing does this have to be for her? It's not like she doesn't have basically universal name recognition in her home state! Just 14 percent, even with the Biden factor still in play, has to be really disappointing for her campaign. Can you imagine Bernie having 14 percent in Vermont?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 08, 2019, 08:53:12 AM
Buttegieg indeed sounds impressive.

But are we really in the world where being a mayor is enough to become President? A man of his heft ought to demonstrate he can win state-wide in Wisconsin, become a governor or Senator, then build from there.

To Buttigieg's point which he's made several times, are you saying that "marinating in DC" is a better alternative? I agree (and he has as well), that state government would also be a good path to presidency, but as someone else in this thread mentioned, he tried running for state office (treasurer), but lost to a republican which is predictable for a red state like Indiana, so his options are limited there.

I am younger than Buttigieg by only several years, but I look up to him not for running for president, but what he has done prior to that. I'd trust him over most of those in congress at the moment. I am starting to believe that being POTUS has just as much to do with your abilities and your temperament, as it does experience...your ability to keep calm and rational under pressure, to be a moderator between the different factions, to not know everything but to know enough to know who best to consult with. Experience is only valuable in the sense that it can hone abilities that are already there...it can also make someone without ability for things like empathy, decision-making, cooperation, etc...just knowledgeable enough to be stupid-dangerous.

This guy is a veteran and has not faltered once on questions regarding international conflict and American security. He's a mayor of a city, and has a better eye on how people on the ground live, even more than most of those people on the ground because he intimately knows the direct behind-the-scene consequences a community faces based on decisions from the federal level (as well as personally, like his right to marry, as a gay person). He is a Democrat mayor of a city in a red state, therefore showing he has the ability to cross the aisle. He is not merely an intellectual, he is intellectually curious...something IMO which is the most important aspect of a position like POTUS in which NOBODY will be prepared on day one, and a position in which "learning on the job" is a necessity for success.

I liked Obama, and I was excited for him. He was a good president and very smart, but not progressive enough which was fine a decade ago, but the "pace of change" Buttigieg talks about frequently, is getting faster and it's time for progressives to take the ball to usher us into new territory. He's asking questions that I've never even thought to ask because that's just how it always was. He's asking questions that people who have dedicated their entire lives to "raising in the ranks", possibly just for the purpose of someday running for the highest office, are too scared to ask because they have invested and benefited from not rocking the boat. And they've had longer and more exposure to being institutionalized by an organization that is out of touch which the average American citizen, which is how we got Trump.

I find it ironic that many of the people making decisions in Washington, work and spend much of their time in a region in which it's residents do not have representation; I can only imagine that it insulates them further from the impact of their decisions or lack thereof. I want someone who has lived with those decisions in their work (mayor of a city), in their government service (military), and in their personal life (right to marry the person they love). As a "millennial" I strongly feel that there is no urgency in our government to improve the quality of American lives today and certainly not for tomorrow. Why would they? They have spent their lives with the goal of being in power and all of their energy is going into holding onto that power, and fighting with others trying to do the same. So no, I don't really want someone who treats public service as a means to an end.

In Buttigieg's words "Democrats can't take it back to the 90's anymore than Republicans can take us back to the 50's". The status quo stopped working in 2016, and we can't go back to that, we can only look ahead.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on April 08, 2019, 12:29:28 PM
@YttriumNitrate thank you for the Indiana-Wisconsin correction. I've been so ill-informed about Mayor Pete that I thought he was mayor of Milwaukee. But South Bend is also an interesting place, a lot like San Marcos, TX, the small college town where I grew up.

The truly embarrassing thing is that I used to focus on Indiana professionally (I've moved on, now).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Johnez on April 09, 2019, 09:28:26 PM
So Sheila Jackson and Cory Booker are pushing for reparations. This is just great. The majority of Americans scoff at this idea, I saw one poll where 2/3 are against. Why oh why do Democrats stake their political positions on things like this? Do they enjoy playing to the GOP playbook??? I mean, JUST 3 years ago we had "Build the Wall," and before that GWB "saved" marriage from being sullied by the gay marriage movement. Why the heck can't they think to do this kind of stuff while in power??? Look at Obama-he won going with the big picture-uniter. Reparations is divisive nonsense. Ugh.... Democrats being advised by GOP trolls or what?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: madgeylou on April 10, 2019, 07:38:00 AM
So Sheila Jackson and Cory Booker are pushing for reparations. This is just great. The majority of Americans scoff at this idea, I saw one poll where 2/3 are against. Why oh why do Democrats stake their political positions on things like this? Do they enjoy playing to the GOP playbook??? I mean, JUST 3 years ago we had "Build the Wall," and before that GWB "saved" marriage from being sullied by the gay marriage movement. Why the heck can't they think to do this kind of stuff while in power??? Look at Obama-he won going with the big picture-uniter. Reparations is divisive nonsense. Ugh.... Democrats being advised by GOP trolls or what?

They are pushing to STUDY how reparations might work. Very different from "pushing for reparations." I think your characterization of this is closer to the description of "divisive nonsense" than looking into how our country's original sin might be healed.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on April 10, 2019, 08:01:24 AM
Even though I really like Buttigieg (and think I was first to mention him in this thread),  I feel that there are a few perspectives that he lacks, which are the perspectives of being a minority, a woman, and a parent.  How important is it to have lived the life? Is that identity politics?

If he runs, I kinda feel like his ideal running mate would be a woman, preferably of color, and preferably a parent.  I.e. Kamala Harris.  But it seems wrong to pass over somebody with so much more experience and age (though as I think about it, this happened with Obama/Biden).  It would be the reverse of what we used to do, which was put the experience at the top of the ticket and the fresh face in the VP position.



Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate on April 10, 2019, 10:05:20 AM
It would be the reverse of what we used to do, which was put the experience at the top of the ticket and the fresh face in the VP position.
What Democratic tickets are you referring to? 2016 when the VP was about 10 years younger, 2004 when the 10 years younger, 1984 when the VP was about 10 years younger? That's not a good track record. Now, let's look at the winners:

2008: Almost 20 years younger than VP
1992: 2 years older than VP
1976: 3 years older than VP
1964: 3 years older than VP
1960: 10 years younger than VP

The fresh face at the top of the Democratic ticket has a much better track record.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 10, 2019, 10:21:25 AM
I like Pete a lot too. 

Sure he lacks some perspectives, but he has some unique ones too. LGBTQ. Millennial. Married. Left-leaning Christian. Midwesterner. Vet.

Who's to say which perspectives are more valuable than others? Trump has kids but is anyone seriously going to give him "parents points?"
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: madgeylou on April 10, 2019, 10:29:51 AM
Even though I really like Buttigieg (and think I was first to mention him in this thread),  I feel that there are a few perspectives that he lacks, which are the perspectives of being a minority, a woman, and a parent.  How important is it to have lived the life? Is that identity politics?

the most important perspective that he lacks is a PROGRESSIVE one. seems like his tenure as mayor didn't do shit to help the vulnerable communities in his town. has he ever spent any amount of time with folks who are not upper middle class and higher? people who don't typically attend harvard and oxford? listening to him talk, it doesn't seem like it.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Cressida on April 10, 2019, 11:36:15 AM
Even though I really like Buttigieg (and think I was first to mention him in this thread),  I feel that there are a few perspectives that he lacks, which are the perspectives of being a minority, a woman, and a parent.  How important is it to have lived the life? Is that identity politics?

If he runs, I kinda feel like his ideal running mate would be a woman, preferably of color, and preferably a parent.  I.e. Kamala Harris.  But it seems wrong to pass over somebody with so much more experience and age (though as I think about it, this happened with Obama/Biden).  It would be the reverse of what we used to do, which was put the experience at the top of the ticket and the fresh face in the VP position.

Purely in the interest of setting the record straight: Kamala Harris doesn't have children. She married later in life and her two stepchildren are in their 20s, I think.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on April 10, 2019, 01:20:54 PM
Even though I really like Buttigieg (and think I was first to mention him in this thread),  I feel that there are a few perspectives that he lacks, which are the perspectives of being a minority, a woman, and a parent.  How important is it to have lived the life? Is that identity politics?

If he runs, I kinda feel like his ideal running mate would be a woman, preferably of color, and preferably a parent.  I.e. Kamala Harris.  But it seems wrong to pass over somebody with so much more experience and age (though as I think about it, this happened with Obama/Biden).  It would be the reverse of what we used to do, which was put the experience at the top of the ticket and the fresh face in the VP position.

Forty-Five career men have held the office of President before. How much "parenting" do you believe JFK did as a young Congressman and Senator? How much "parenting" do you believe George H. W. Bush did as an oil tycoon in Texas in the 1960's? Bill Clinton won "Father of the Year" a few years ago, but I'm not aware of any evidence that he was an exceptional father.

Even Obama--who seems to be a thoughtful parent--was still willing to thrust his family into the political spotlight during his daughters' teenage years.

This requirement that our President understand "parenting" is rather bizarre.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on April 10, 2019, 02:07:36 PM
It would be the reverse of what we used to do, which was put the experience at the top of the ticket and the fresh face in the VP position.
What Democratic tickets are you referring to? 2016 when the VP was about 10 years younger, 2004 when the 10 years younger, 1984 when the VP was about 10 years younger? That's not a good track record. Now, let's look at the winners:

2008: Almost 20 years younger than VP
1992: 2 years older than VP
1976: 3 years older than VP
1964: 3 years older than VP
1960: 10 years younger than VP

The fresh face at the top of the Democratic ticket has a much better track record.

That's interesting data.  When I said "we" I was speaking of Americans in general. I'm not a Democrat although I lean left, more so with every year. Looking at the GOP, it looks like putting the fresh face (or celebrity) at the top of the ticket is also the way to go.

But "Promoting" younger men over older and more/equally qualified women is not sitting well with me these days.

Quote
Purely in the interest of setting the record straight: Kamala Harris doesn't have children. She married later in life and her two stepchildren are in their 20s, I think.
Maybe not the nuclear family, but she does have some experience... her younger stepchild was in high school when she got married.

I'm not saying that Buttigieg would have much less of a perspective on hands-on parenting than some or even most of his predecessors.  I'm saying it would also be nice to have somebody who has had more. Elizabeth Warren (who was a stay-at-home mom, a working mom, and a work-at-home mom variously), and Joe Biden (single parent, caring for seriously injured children, for 5 years) for instance if we require somebody with more parenting cred than Harris.

Obviously we are not going to find a freak of nature who is all things to all people, but I'm wondering about what we would consider to be a balanced ticket.  Maybe the most important thing to balance is executive/legislative experience. But so many Senators are running that it should be easy to find a complement to Buttigieg there.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 10, 2019, 03:15:34 PM
Even though I really like Buttigieg (and think I was first to mention him in this thread),  I feel that there are a few perspectives that he lacks, which are the perspectives of being a minority, a woman, and a parent.  How important is it to have lived the life? Is that identity politics?

the most important perspective that he lacks is a PROGRESSIVE one. seems like his tenure as mayor didn't do shit to help the vulnerable communities in his town. has he ever spent any amount of time with folks who are not upper middle class and higher? people who don't typically attend harvard and oxford? listening to him talk, it doesn't seem like it.

Here is a wonderful non biased  article on how Buttigieg went in good faith, with a plan to deal with abandoned and uninhabitable properties. It was not that he decided to pick on a specific community...it was a major issue which those within the community acknowledged. After some criticism from those in the community in the methods, he immediately invited their input and amended his entire plan. He made himself available to his staunchest critic, who became his biggest supporter, and is now saying at the time she thought he should run from President someday. This was a black woman, part of the community, whoís own properties were slated to be demolished. She is now running for mayor, to fill his vacancy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/henrygomez/mayor-pete-buttigieg-south-bend-gentrification

I donít know how you can say he is not progressive. He is talking about possibly adding supreme court justices, and changing the whole selection format. And doing away with the electoral vote. He is also supports Medicare for all via a pathway of ďMedicare for all who want itĒ.  In regards to education reform, he wants more federal funding to go to title 1 schools located in communities that have been in poverty for 20 years or longer, And supports the creation federal service jobs/organizations (like JFK and the Peace Corps) as a mediary between high school and college, and possibly as a means of earning or being reimbursed, money for education.

What do you believe is progressive? Free tuition would be wonderful, but  not something we can go straight to, and there needs to be stipulations around it. This is where Bernie Sanders loses me. And personally the people who believe he can get that must not know how government works and the amount of cooperation and compromise that goes into even the smallest of changes.  Shit, Congress canít even agree to pass regulations that both sides agree with.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 10, 2019, 03:50:58 PM
Even though I really like Buttigieg (and think I was first to mention him in this thread),  I feel that there are a few perspectives that he lacks, which are the perspectives of being a minority, a woman, and a parent.  How important is it to have lived the life? Is that identity politics?

If he runs, I kinda feel like his ideal running mate would be a woman, preferably of color, and preferably a parent.  I.e. Kamala Harris.  But it seems wrong to pass over somebody with so much more experience and age (though as I think about it, this happened with Obama/Biden).  It would be the reverse of what we used to do, which was put the experience at the top of the ticket and the fresh face in the VP position.

I would love a Buttigieg/ Abrams ticket, or vice versa. They have a sort of optimism and earnestness we need now more than ever, and seem like they would make a good partnership. I like Kamala and thinks she does good service for our country. But like many of the other candidates I feel like thereís too much animosity towards and around her, and unfortunately what we need in this specific moment in time is someone who appeals across the aisle and can actually work to get things done and is less concerned with grandstanding.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on April 10, 2019, 08:09:59 PM
I'll take any Democrat we can get into office.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: accolay on April 10, 2019, 09:38:26 PM
I'll take any Democrat we can get into office.

Yeah. Anything is better than what we have at this point.

Can someone explain how adding more justices will depoliticize the supreme court? What would stop either party from continuing to stack it in their favor?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 10, 2019, 10:12:30 PM
I'll take any Democrat we can get into office.

Yeah. Anything is better than what we have at this point.

Can someone explain how adding more justices will depoliticize the supreme court? What would stop either party from continuing to stack it in their favor?

One theory Iíve heard is that five would be chosen by Democrats, five chosen by Republicans, then those 10 would unanimously choose five more justicesÖfor a total of 15. The idea being that it would depoliticize the selection process so we donít have one side holding vacancies hostage.

Before hearing this theory mentioned by Buttigieg, which I donít believe he came up with himself itís just one idea that he said interests him... before hearing it, I didnít even consider or think it would be possible to change the supreme court. Or I should say I didnít think it was possible until the last couple years. But he mentions that nowhere in the Constitution does it say there can only be nine. And he also brought up a really good point, that the Republicans essentially changed the number when they voted to hold over, for a year, with only eight justices.

Now I am no political or government expert, but my understanding of how it would depoliticize it, is that the unanimous votes of the Party appointed justices, The votes that will shift the scale from balanced to unbalanced, will be chosen by a group of people that do not have constituents that they are trying to please, like the Senate. That means they can choose the most ideal logical he balanced justices based on their qualifications, and not on whether or not it pisses off their voters.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on April 10, 2019, 10:18:46 PM
I'll take any Democrat we can get into office.

Yeah. Anything is better than what we have at this point.

Can someone explain how adding more justices will depoliticize the supreme court? What would stop either party from continuing to stack it in their favor?

One theory Iíve heard is that five would be chosen by Democrats, five chosen by Republicans, then those 10 would unanimously choose five more justicesÖfor a total of 15. The idea being that it would depoliticize the selection process so we donít have one side holding vacancies hostage.

Before hearing this theory mentioned by Buttigieg, which I donít believe he came up with himself itís just one idea that he said interests him... before hearing it, I didnít even consider or think it would be possible to change the supreme court. Or I should say I didnít think it was possible until the last couple years. But he mentions that nowhere in the Constitution does it say there can only be nine. And he also brought up a really good point, that the Republicans essentially changed the number when they voted to hold over, for a year, with only eight justices.

The Constitution doesn't say how many justices can serve on the Supreme Court.  However, it is currently set as nine by federal law, so increasing the number would require a law changing it to be passed by Congress and signed by the President (or his/her veto overridden).

I'm pretty sure the Constitution does say that the President appoints justices who are confirmed to the court by the Senate, though, so the proposal outlined above would require an amendment to the Constitution.  I don't see that happening.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 10, 2019, 10:38:16 PM
I'll take any Democrat we can get into office.

Yeah. Anything is better than what we have at this point.

Can someone explain how adding more justices will depoliticize the supreme court? What would stop either party from continuing to stack it in their favor?

One theory Iíve heard is that five would be chosen by Democrats, five chosen by Republicans, then those 10 would unanimously choose five more justicesÖfor a total of 15. The idea being that it would depoliticize the selection process so we donít have one side holding vacancies hostage.

Before hearing this theory mentioned by Buttigieg, which I donít believe he came up with himself itís just one idea that he said interests him... before hearing it, I didnít even consider or think it would be possible to change the supreme court. Or I should say I didnít think it was possible until the last couple years. But he mentions that nowhere in the Constitution does it say there can only be nine. And he also brought up a really good point, that the Republicans essentially changed the number when they voted to hold over, for a year, with only eight justices.

The Constitution doesn't say how many justices can serve on the Supreme Court.  However, it is currently set as nine by federal law, so increasing the number would require a law changing it to be passed by Congress and signed by the President (or his/her veto overridden).

I'm pretty sure the Constitution does say that the President appoints justices who are confirmed to the court by the Senate, though, so the proposal outlined above would require an amendment to the Constitution.  I don't see that happening.

True then, that the appointing of some of the justices by existing justices would certainly go against the constitution as it exists. May I ask why you donít think there could be another amendment? There were quite a handful of amendments in the mid century up into the 90s. And within the last century There were quite a lot of doozies, including Prohibition, and the repealing of Prohibition, womenís voting rights, And the right for citizens of DC to vote in presidential elections.

In fact I would argue that such a large gap between now and the passing of our last amendment, shows that it is time to re-evaluate and dare I say, progress. Our society and itís needs have changed and accelerated in an unimaginable way,  especially with the advent of technology and globalization. But established entities donít want to rock the boat. Well we need someone who will.

 This country used to be full of innovators, and that included political/constitutional innovators. Nobody back then was looking to the past, in order to guide them into the future. I donít know if this whole looking back trend  is just an attempt to over correct such a fast pace of change. All I know is as a lifelong Florida girl, I learned from an early age is better to swim with the current and not against or away from it.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on April 10, 2019, 11:03:01 PM
A few reasons:

1.  The number of amendments proposed to the number of amendments passed.  11,770 to 27.

2.  What it takes to amend the Constitution compared to how divided the country is.  It's a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress and then ratification by 3/4ths of the states, which would be 38 at the moment.  (Or a Constitutional convention, which hasn't happened yet in almost 250 years.)

3.  Even if it is a good idea, there are numerous good ideas that have been proposed as amendments that haven't been ratified.  IOW, simply being a good idea isn't anywhere near enough to get it through the gauntlet mentioned in item 2.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 11, 2019, 05:10:17 AM
A few reasons:

1.  The number of amendments proposed to the number of amendments passed.  11,770 to 27.

2.  What it takes to amend the Constitution compared to how divided the country is.  It's a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress and then ratification by 3/4ths of the states, which would be 38 at the moment.  (Or a Constitutional convention, which hasn't happened yet in almost 250 years.)

3.  Even if it is a good idea, there are numerous good ideas that have been proposed as amendments that haven't been ratified.  IOW, simply being a good idea isn't anywhere near enough to get it through the gauntlet mentioned in item 2.

Congress looks a lot different than it ever has. And partisanship is a major problem that is not going away. At least both sides can agree on that point. When I think about all of the things that have changed in just the last 5 to 10 years, it is astounding.  Partial healthcare reform, gay marriage, Black president, and a television personality knocked off a giant fixture of modern political times to win the presidency. And that is with a fractured government. Partisanship is at its height because of the internet, and 24- hour news that act as echo chambers (for both major party sides, and their fringes) and it spiked when a black man had the audacity to become president. Sorry, I just have to call it as it is. That created a disgusting divide that people are still to this day are trying to understand.

 Iím not saying all this to merely reiterate that I think constitutional progression is needed. But to show that people are becoming more aware of their power in voting, and who they get in matters and can have big effects (good big or bad big...British folks are learning this lesson in real time). And just the fact that total healthcare reform, and an amendment of certain issues are becoming major talking points, is the right direction and a good sign.

If you have a good leader in place, who is not divisive, it is possible to get the necessary players on boardÖespecially since it appears these days that most of the reason why Congress canít pass a shit, is because they are holding in out of spite for the other side, or in opposition to a president who represents the other side. Honestly, I just want the major party categories to fuck off. And I know many many people my age who feel the same way.

That is why, as a ďdemocratĒ  itís so frustrating to see so many of these candidates act like going in fighting for their side, and putting down the other side is what we need right now. And even more frustrating that so many people believe that the louder or more passionate about an issue, or more angry their candidate is, the more likely they are to get things done in Washington, when itís that very approach most of the time, is the reason why things donít get done. But because people donít understand the concept of the co-equal branches of government, they vote for the ďgladiatorĒ, and thatís why we get seasonal shutdowns. And Democrats are about to make that mistake again.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: madgeylou on April 11, 2019, 08:08:00 AM
Even though I really like Buttigieg (and think I was first to mention him in this thread),  I feel that there are a few perspectives that he lacks, which are the perspectives of being a minority, a woman, and a parent.  How important is it to have lived the life? Is that identity politics?

the most important perspective that he lacks is a PROGRESSIVE one. seems like his tenure as mayor didn't do shit to help the vulnerable communities in his town. has he ever spent any amount of time with folks who are not upper middle class and higher? people who don't typically attend harvard and oxford? listening to him talk, it doesn't seem like it.

Here is a wonderful non biased  article on how Buttigieg went in good faith, with a plan to deal with abandoned and uninhabitable properties. It was not that he decided to pick on a specific community...it was a major issue which those within the community acknowledged. After some criticism from those in the community in the methods, he immediately invited their input and amended his entire plan. He made himself available to his staunchest critic, who became his biggest supporter, and is now saying at the time she thought he should run from President someday. This was a black woman, part of the community, whoís own properties were slated to be demolished. She is now running for mayor, to fill his vacancy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/henrygomez/mayor-pete-buttigieg-south-bend-gentrification

I donít know how you can say he is not progressive. He is talking about possibly adding supreme court justices, and changing the whole selection format. And doing away with the electoral vote. He is also supports Medicare for all via a pathway of ďMedicare for all who want itĒ.  In regards to education reform, he wants more federal funding to go to title 1 schools located in communities that have been in poverty for 20 years or longer, And supports the creation federal service jobs/organizations (like JFK and the Peace Corps) as a mediary between high school and college, and possibly as a means of earning or being reimbursed, money for education.

What do you believe is progressive? Free tuition would be wonderful, but  not something we can go straight to, and there needs to be stipulations around it. This is where Bernie Sanders loses me. And personally the people who believe he can get that must not know how government works and the amount of cooperation and compromise that goes into even the smallest of changes.  Shit, Congress canít even agree to pass regulations that both sides agree with.

That's a great article and I appreciate your sharing it with me, though I think your characterization of the opinion the women mentioned in the article have of him is overly generous, based on what's in the piece. I got the sense that they got involved specifically because he was not taking their constituency's concerns into account in his zeal for 1000 homes in 1000 days, and they were pleasantly surprised that he listened, somewhat.

My point, though, is that a true progressive wouldn't need folks in vulnerable communities to tell him what's wrong with his policy after he'd already implemented it. A progressive would have gone and discussed those plans with the folks who'd be most impacted by them, before starting to raze houses. A progressive would have involved the community in deciding what the plan would be.

Buttigieg comes off to me as a business consultant from a very privileged background who loves data and being a wunderkind more than he cares about actual people. This article in particular (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete) resonates with me quite a bit. I'm willing to be proven wrong, though! The campaigns have only begun.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 11, 2019, 08:12:19 AM
Mayor Pete looks to officially announce in South Bend this Sunday (he picked GoT day, which considering his nerdy background, I wonder if it's intentional?)

I'm tossing him another $37 (his age, and it also happens to be his average contribution (it's $36.25 but close enough).

And Pete is definitely the real life version of Ben Wyatt from Parks and Rec. He even loves nerdy board games! I identify with him on many levels.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 11, 2019, 08:21:31 AM
Even though I really like Buttigieg (and think I was first to mention him in this thread),  I feel that there are a few perspectives that he lacks, which are the perspectives of being a minority, a woman, and a parent.  How important is it to have lived the life? Is that identity politics?

the most important perspective that he lacks is a PROGRESSIVE one. seems like his tenure as mayor didn't do shit to help the vulnerable communities in his town. has he ever spent any amount of time with folks who are not upper middle class and higher? people who don't typically attend harvard and oxford? listening to him talk, it doesn't seem like it.

Here is a wonderful non biased  article on how Buttigieg went in good faith, with a plan to deal with abandoned and uninhabitable properties. It was not that he decided to pick on a specific community...it was a major issue which those within the community acknowledged. After some criticism from those in the community in the methods, he immediately invited their input and amended his entire plan. He made himself available to his staunchest critic, who became his biggest supporter, and is now saying at the time she thought he should run from President someday. This was a black woman, part of the community, whoís own properties were slated to be demolished. She is now running for mayor, to fill his vacancy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/henrygomez/mayor-pete-buttigieg-south-bend-gentrification

I donít know how you can say he is not progressive. He is talking about possibly adding supreme court justices, and changing the whole selection format. And doing away with the electoral vote. He is also supports Medicare for all via a pathway of ďMedicare for all who want itĒ.  In regards to education reform, he wants more federal funding to go to title 1 schools located in communities that have been in poverty for 20 years or longer, And supports the creation federal service jobs/organizations (like JFK and the Peace Corps) as a mediary between high school and college, and possibly as a means of earning or being reimbursed, money for education.

What do you believe is progressive? Free tuition would be wonderful, but  not something we can go straight to, and there needs to be stipulations around it. This is where Bernie Sanders loses me. And personally the people who believe he can get that must not know how government works and the amount of cooperation and compromise that goes into even the smallest of changes.  Shit, Congress canít even agree to pass regulations that both sides agree with.

That's a great article and I appreciate your sharing it with me, though I think your characterization of the opinion the women mentioned in the article have of him is overly generous, based on what's in the piece. I got the sense that they got involved specifically because he was not taking their constituency's concerns into account in his zeal for 1000 homes in 1000 days, and they were pleasantly surprised that he listened, somewhat.

My point, though, is that a true progressive wouldn't need folks in vulnerable communities to tell him what's wrong with his policy after he'd already implemented it. A progressive would have gone and discussed those plans with the folks who'd be most impacted by them, before starting to raze houses. A progressive would have involved the community in deciding what the plan would be.

Buttigieg comes off to me as a business consultant from a very privileged background who loves data and being a wunderkind more than he cares about actual people. This article in particular (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete) resonates with me quite a bit. I'm willing to be proven wrong, though! The campaigns have only begun.

Dude was 29/30 and in his first year of public office. In the moment and also looking back, he already acknowledged his mistake and not only did he work to correct it at the time as much as possible, but it informed him on how he should proceed in similar scenarios, in the future. He progressed. Literally. All of those things you mentioned that he should have done, while wonderful and I agree, is not the definition of a progressive. You can be an oppressive progressive. Everything I have heard read and seen from him tells me that he is not interested in using progression to press people, but rather to include people in the progress. One could argue that Hitler was progressive as hell.

I didnít intend to micharacterize anyone from the article. I hate twisted words so if I did that it was just based on things and the woman was quoted on:  ďYou very well could be president of the United States one day,Ē she recalled telling Buttigieg. ďAnd I feel like itís the responsibility of the people of South Bend to make sure youíre prepared for that.

I agree, I shouldnít take from that that she is or was necessarily a huge proponent of him.

I didnít have time to read the whole article you posted, but I read part of it and Iím interested by what I read so far, and have heard other people mention similar things. I specially like that it was written by someone who read his book. I have not yet. I will definitely read it and share my thoughts. Thank you
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: madgeylou on April 11, 2019, 08:55:38 AM
@Lmoot I appreciate the dialog -- but "progressive" is a word with a meaning. A quick google turns this up as a definition: a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

Meaning: Hitler was not progressive, he was REgressive. Oppression is not progressive. Wanting change of any sort is not progressive -- it's specifically liberal change.

I don't mean to say that I don't think Mayor Pete is a great guy -- I do. But I don't think he has the depth of experience or the listening ear that I want to see in a president ... especially coming from such a privileged background. Data is great but it has to go hand in hand with circling in all kinds of people when you are making decisions, otherwise you're just a tech bro, not a leader.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 11, 2019, 09:19:22 AM
@Lmoot I appreciate the dialog -- but "progressive" is a word with a meaning. A quick google turns this up as a definition: a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

Meaning: Hitler was not progressive, he was REgressive. Oppression is not progressive. Wanting change of any sort is not progressive -- it's specifically liberal change.

I don't mean to say that I don't think Mayor Pete is a great guy -- I do. But I don't think he has the depth of experience or the listening ear that I want to see in a president ... especially coming from such a privileged background. Data is great but it has to go hand in hand with circling in all kinds of people when you are making decisions, otherwise you're just a tech bro, not a leader.

You are right about the word progressive in a political sense. I was using it incorrectly. I was thinking in terms of the definition of change. But yes, there should be a distinction when using it political context.

Itís too early for me to make a decision. And to your note Buttigieg has not been tested on the public stage. All I know is my horse shit radar doesnít go off nearly as much with him as it has with pretty much any other candidate. And that includes Obama who I truly respect.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on April 11, 2019, 09:57:37 PM
Thanks madgeyLou for that article, it's a great counterpoint to the publicity Buttigieg has received lately.

I like Elizabeth Warren, specifically for her policy proposals for childcare expansion, and her efforts to help people get fairer treatment from the  financial industry.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: madgeylou on April 12, 2019, 09:23:04 AM
Thanks madgeyLou for that article, it's a great counterpoint to the publicity Buttigieg has received lately.

I like Elizabeth Warren, specifically for her policy proposals for childcare expansion, and her efforts to help people get fairer treatment from the  financial industry.

She's really the one bringing the heat from a policy point of view. It's like she's a musician who's been waiting to drop all these songs on the public for a long time. I find her intelligent and passionate and kind of adorably dorky and earnest and I am here for all of it. She's my #1 right now.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: jrhampt on April 12, 2019, 05:00:16 PM
I also really like Warren.  I thought this was an interesting profile on her:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/12/elizabeth-warren-profile-young-republican-2020-president-226613

Sheís probably my top pick so far (I also know more about her than many of the others).  Iíve also liked Buttigieg from the interviews Iíve heard, but if I had to pick between the two right now Iíd go with Warren.  With a Buttigieg VP maybe.

It does make me a little crazy that the top 3 in polls and/or fundraising right now are Biden, Beto, and Bernie.  There are so many other candidates to choose from.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: powskier on April 12, 2019, 08:27:16 PM
I like Andrew Yang, problem solver , zero interest in playing the identity politics game, likes math, would like capitalism to serve humanity better and want's to give every American over 18 $1000/month of UBI. That would put us in FIRE right away!
He will be in the Democratic debates.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: powskier on April 12, 2019, 08:37:21 PM
I'll take any Democrat we can get into office.
Agreed, although to be fair I'd even take George W at this stage, and I hate George W.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on April 13, 2019, 11:10:05 AM
I'll take any Democrat we can get into office.
Agreed, although to be fair I'd even take George W at this stage, and I hate George W.

Wow that's saying something !

I'm looking at some polls and it seems like Biden and Sanders are 1st and 2nd in the polls, with 3rd being traded around between various 2nd tier candidates like Harris in California, Buttigieg, Warren, etc.

In the meantime Republicans are trying to define Democrats as Socialists against air travel and cow farms.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 13, 2019, 11:21:44 AM
Is anyone else predicting that a republican will break out and run, and the RNC will back them over Trump?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: v8rx7guy on April 13, 2019, 11:30:59 AM
Is anyone else predicting that a republican will break out and run, and the RNC will back them over Trump?

I predicted in another thread that Trump won't run at all.  I think he does not enjoy being president, and there's no real point in doing another term in his mind.  He has achieved his goal of being the president and there's nothing left to gain.  He is probably heading into his last 10-15 years of his life, why spend 4 of them doing something he doesn't enjoy?

Pence will get Republican nomination
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: MonkeyJenga on April 13, 2019, 11:42:39 AM
Yall, Trump filed his reelection campaign papers on Inauguration Day. He has already held rallies and fundraisers. He's not willingly going to give up his position as one of the most powerful people in the world.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Apple_Tango on April 13, 2019, 01:47:12 PM
That last comment sent shivers down my spine. Iím glad we have 2-term limits for Prez!
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: JetBlast on April 13, 2019, 06:06:11 PM
Is anyone else predicting that a republican will break out and run, and the RNC will back them over Trump?

I predicted in another thread that Trump won't run at all.  I think he does not enjoy being president, and there's no real point in doing another term in his mind.  He has achieved his goal of being the president and there's nothing left to gain.  He is probably heading into his last 10-15 years of his life, why spend 4 of them doing something he doesn't enjoy?
Sure thereís a point. To win re-election and prove that people like him and approve of him. One final middle finger to everyone that didnít recognize his brilliance. At least thatís how I assume he sees it.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on April 13, 2019, 06:26:13 PM
Is anyone else predicting that a republican will break out and run, and the RNC will back them over Trump?

LOL, nope. They know enough of their base would be so furious at that they wouldn't vote.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on April 13, 2019, 09:06:22 PM
Seems that a lot of the media really doesn't want Biden. Probably because Biden won't promise everyone $1000/month and a free puppy.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: v8rx7guy on April 13, 2019, 09:15:17 PM
Seems that a lot of the media really doesn't want Biden. Probably because Biden won't promise everyone $1000/month and a free puppy.

And he is a straight white male.  Extra negative points because he is old.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on April 13, 2019, 09:47:59 PM
Seems that a lot of the media really doesn't want Biden. Probably because Biden won't promise everyone $1000/month and a free puppy.

And he is a straight white male.  Extra negative points because he is old.

"Like, he doesn't even Snapchat. Ew."
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: sherr on April 15, 2019, 07:55:26 AM
Is anyone else predicting that a republican will break out and run, and the RNC will back them over Trump?

I predicted in another thread that Trump won't run at all.  I think he does not enjoy being president, and there's no real point in doing another term in his mind.  He has achieved his goal of being the president and there's nothing left to gain.  He is probably heading into his last 10-15 years of his life, why spend 4 of them doing something he doesn't enjoy?

Pence will get Republican nomination

No, no one is predicting that because it's not remotely plausible. The Republican base loves Trump, never mind the fact that it's incredibly unlikely that any elected president would lose his nomination in the primaries. If Trump is running then there is a 0% chance they would nominate anyone else over him.

And as MonkeyJenga pointed out we already know that Trump is running again.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 15, 2019, 08:08:36 AM
Well I had planned to wait until the debates to pick a fave, but Mayor Pete has won me over. My god, the man is so smart and articulate and calming. I admit to getting emotional during his announcement speech yesterday when he talked about speaking to his high school self. The man is a gifted communicator (I daresay he has an Obama-esque appeal). I am now emotionally and intellectually invested in him. I'm all in.

His freedom, security, democracy speech (which he wrote himself, didn't use a speechwriter) should be his "go to" speech on the campaign trail. As a left-leaning religious person, he can be someone who reclaims "freedom" and "security" from the GOP. I really think he can.

But I see the problem...

Other Dems are equally emotionally and intellectually invested in their faves already, which means that even though most of us (hopefully) will support the eventual nominee, it also means that, with SOOOOO many candidates, virtually all of us will end up being asked to support our second, or third, or even fourth preference.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on April 15, 2019, 08:28:43 AM
Well I had planned to wait until the debates to pick a fave, but Mayor Pete has won me over. My god, the man is so smart and articulate and calming. I admit to getting emotional during his announcement speech yesterday when he talked about speaking to his high school self. The man is a gifted communicator (I daresay he has an Obama-esque appeal). I am now emotionally and intellectually invested in him. I'm all in.

His freedom, security, democracy speech (which he wrote himself, didn't use a speechwriter) should be his "go to" speech on the campaign trail. As a left-leaning religious person, he can be someone who reclaims "freedom" and "security" from the GOP. I really think he can.

But I see the problem...

Other Dems are equally emotionally and intellectually invested in their faves already, which means that even though most of us (hopefully) will support the eventual nominee, it also means that, with SOOOOO many candidates, virtually all of us will end up being asked to support our second, or third, or even fourth preference.

I'm really not invested in anyone, yet.

Can you tell me how you feel about the fact that Buttigieg, despite being apparently incredibly intelligent, etc. has only the experience of being the mayor of a medium-sized city? I just don't get it. I still kinda think experience is something Democrats should want in their presidential candidate.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: wenchsenior on April 15, 2019, 08:29:33 AM
Is anyone else predicting that a republican will break out and run, and the RNC will back them over Trump?

I predicted in another thread that Trump won't run at all.  I think he does not enjoy being president, and there's no real point in doing another term in his mind.  He has achieved his goal of being the president and there's nothing left to gain.  He is probably heading into his last 10-15 years of his life, why spend 4 of them doing something he doesn't enjoy?

Pence will get Republican nomination

No, no one is predicting that because it's not remotely plausible. The Republican base loves Trump, never mind the fact that it's incredibly unlikely that any elected president would lose his nomination in the primaries. If Trump is running then there is a 0% chance they would nominate anyone else over him.

And as MonkeyJenga pointed out we already know that Trump is running again.

I'd guess there is approximately a 2% chance of Trump not running. He's running already, in fact. The only way I could see it is if Trump was suddenly diagnosed with terminal illness. But I doubt that would stop him from running either.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 15, 2019, 08:54:16 AM
Well I had planned to wait until the debates to pick a fave, but Mayor Pete has won me over. My god, the man is so smart and articulate and calming. I admit to getting emotional during his announcement speech yesterday when he talked about speaking to his high school self. The man is a gifted communicator (I daresay he has an Obama-esque appeal). I am now emotionally and intellectually invested in him. I'm all in.

His freedom, security, democracy speech (which he wrote himself, didn't use a speechwriter) should be his "go to" speech on the campaign trail. As a left-leaning religious person, he can be someone who reclaims "freedom" and "security" from the GOP. I really think he can.

But I see the problem...

Other Dems are equally emotionally and intellectually invested in their faves already, which means that even though most of us (hopefully) will support the eventual nominee, it also means that, with SOOOOO many candidates, virtually all of us will end up being asked to support our second, or third, or even fourth preference.

I'm really not invested in anyone, yet.

Can you tell me how you feel about the fact that Buttigieg, despite being apparently incredibly intelligent, etc. has only the experience of being the mayor of a medium-sized city? I just don't get it. I still kinda think experience is something Democrats should want in their presidential candidate.

I look at it like this...

1) His experience is executive. To me, that's more important than legislative experience, where your voice is one of many, and you ultimately aren't responsible for running anything, other than a small staff. When you run a city, the buck stops with you. So I think running a city for 8 years means something, and that many of those skills are probably more transferable to the presidential position than are legislative backgrounds. Would I prefer it had he been governor for a term or two? Yes, sure, I would. But no candidate is perfect.

2) We're fooling ourselves when we think/assume that ANYONE is really "ready" to be president. Everyone has to rely on subject matter experts once they are there, be they military experts, economic experts, etc. I think Pete is the type of guy who recognizes this and would surround himself with brilliant, data-driven subject matter experts. Can you imagine the type of Cabinet he would have? And Pete's raw intelligence makes him better equipped to "get up to speed" on most issues. (And yes, everyone has to "get up to speed.")

3) Much of being President is steering the boat. Making policy decisions for others to implement. I think Pete would excel at seeing the big picture where others wouldn't as much. He seems very calm and rational and introspective, all qualities I think are vastly underrated with candidates.

4) His worldviews and experience are important for a President to have. He's an east-coast educated guy with roots in the heartland. Check and check. He's gay, but also married and religious, while not being weird or intolerant re: religion, AND he actually acknowledges atheists when he says "and those who have no religion at all," which I REALLY appreciate. Check and check. He's a vet, and he's seen the first hand effects of war, and he values our veterans and their health. Check and check. He's liberal, but not a socialist. I think he can win.

I view the others as all having significant flaws too. Bernie is too old and too radical. I'm afraid he has tons of "communist papers" all through his history. He might be able to win, but I think Pete is a much better candidate. Biden's ship has sailed.  Too much baggage. O'Rourke seems like an empty suit after listening to Pete. Warren is professorial and will NEVER make a connection with voters like Pete can. Kamala Harris is my #2 now. I think she is strong.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: wenchsenior on April 15, 2019, 09:06:02 AM
It's very early, but right now my personal preference would lean Warren/Mayor Pete or Harris/Mayor Pete. The problem is, I want a candidate that can win a lot more than I want a candidate I prefer.  I am not interested in Sanders, but I think he MIGHT be able to win. I'm quite sure a Warren ticket couldn't win, and a Harris ticket I am also unsure.  However, Dems seem to inexplicably adore O'Rourke, who maybe COULD win. So maybe he needs to top the ticket.  I'd vote for W over Trump at this point.  Hell, I might even vote for Ted Cruz over Trump at this point, and I loathe him and everything he stands for. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 15, 2019, 11:30:35 AM
New Emerson (national) poll. Yes it's small with a huge (5%) margin of error, so yeah take it for what it's worth.

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/april-national-poll-bernie-takes-lead-for-democratic-nomination-mayor-pete-on-the-move

Takeaways:

1) Biden has lot a little support, Bernie has moved into 1st, at least in this one.
2) Mayor Pete is in third place (barely).
3) If Biden doesn't run, Mayor Pete is in second place. Bernie widens his lead over the field by picking up the highest percentage of Biden's voters, but Pete(!) picks up more Biden supporters than any of the others.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on April 15, 2019, 01:33:34 PM
Those headlines about Trump already having raised $30 million?

Sure sounds to me like he wants people to know he's running. And he especially wants other possible Republican challengers to know not to bother.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on April 15, 2019, 03:54:53 PM
Is anyone else predicting that a republican will break out and run, and the RNC will back them over Trump?

I'm not.  I predict Trump will cruise to the Republican nomination with ease.

However, I do note that former Governor Bill Weld has officially announced for the Republican nomination:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/politics/bill-weld-2020-trump/index.html
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on April 15, 2019, 06:58:49 PM
Bill Weld has jumped into the pool.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/politics/bill-weld-2020-trump/index.html

He was the gov of Massachusetts and VP pick on the libertarian ticket in 2016 (how he ended up second tier to Johnson is a mystery to me). Will he be quickly squashed or actually put a dent in Trump?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Cressida on April 16, 2019, 12:39:16 AM
Well I had planned to wait until the debates to pick a fave, but Mayor Pete has won me over. My god, the man is so smart and articulate and calming. I admit to getting emotional during his announcement speech yesterday when he talked about speaking to his high school self. The man is a gifted communicator (I daresay he has an Obama-esque appeal). I am now emotionally and intellectually invested in him. I'm all in.

I suspect the biggest question now regarding Buttigieg is whether he can stick with the approach that's caused people to like him so much. The best historical example of failure along these lines is Howard Dean in 2003/4. Once he got popular, he started trying to appeal to the broader electorate (rather than the anti-war etc. contingent who'd lifted him to prominence) and it immediately backfired because it seemed inauthentic. I'm still grouchy with him about that.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 16, 2019, 04:06:39 AM
Well I had planned to wait until the debates to pick a fave, but Mayor Pete has won me over. My god, the man is so smart and articulate and calming. I admit to getting emotional during his announcement speech yesterday when he talked about speaking to his high school self. The man is a gifted communicator (I daresay he has an Obama-esque appeal). I am now emotionally and intellectually invested in him. I'm all in.

I suspect the biggest question now regarding Buttigieg is whether he can stick with the approach that's caused people to like him so much. The best historical example of failure along these lines is Howard Dean in 2003/4. Once he got popular, he started trying to appeal to the broader electorate (rather than the anti-war etc. contingent who'd lifted him to prominence) and it immediately backfired because it seemed inauthentic. I'm still grouchy with him about that.

I'm worried about this same thing. I also don't like big media falling all over him and the "talent show" angle they keep pushing (speaking different languages, concert pianist). Not because it's not interesting to me because it is. But it's just not what the majority care about, and actually may turn off some in this age where many are too fanatic or lazy to do their own research, and instead default to oppositional voting.  It does not appear that the left-leaning media learned their lesson in the last election, that forcefully pushing their favorite candidate (and I get it, I really like the guy too), is not the way to go. Just give the news, and trust if people like what they hear they will follow up on their own, but no one likes being hand held, even those who agree.

The same with celebrities. They need to stay the eff away from Buttigieg (and he away from them). This is not about you the celebrity, or the media...it's about we the people and our candidates.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on April 17, 2019, 08:48:06 PM
Buttigieg will have to convincingly link his own struggles of being an outsider to other groups such as women's rights, minority rights, and the advancement of working class people.
Not sure he can do that.   I know Bernie Sanders is working toward that regard, which may explain his reluctance at releasing his tax returns which revealed the million dollar book deal.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 19, 2019, 07:59:52 AM
Fascinating takeaway from one of the newer polls.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldurkheimer/2019/04/17/5-weird-items-in-the-new-bernie-buttigieg-poll/#7b87ac897ddd

A few eye-opening tidbits...

26% of current Bernie Sanders supporters said that they would rather vote for President Donald Trump over Senator Elizabeth Warren, if that were the eventual 2020 matchup.

I really don't get these 26%. How do you logically go from, "Okay I support Bernie's policies of living wage for all, higher taxes on the 1 percent, Medicare for all" to..."MAGA!!" ??

I mean...HOW? I really wish I understood the logic there, because these are the people who might flip flop either way on the general election depending on the Dem candidate.


While 100% of Buttigiegís supporters said they would support Bernie against Trump (if that were the General Election matchup), only 79% of Bernieís supporters said they would vote for Buttigieg over Trump in a General Election.

And they treat Pete the same way (almost) as they treat Warren. WTH? Is the takeway that Pete supporters are pragmatic with their eyes on the big picture (beating Trump) while a quarter of Bernie supporters will bolt if they don't get their way?

Do any Bernie supporters on the forum feel this way? If so, could you share your thoughts?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on April 19, 2019, 08:32:26 AM
Fascinating takeaway from one of the newer polls.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldurkheimer/2019/04/17/5-weird-items-in-the-new-bernie-buttigieg-poll/#7b87ac897ddd

A few eye-opening tidbits...

26% of current Bernie Sanders supporters said that they would rather vote for President Donald Trump over Senator Elizabeth Warren, if that were the eventual 2020 matchup.

I really don't get these 26%. How do you logically go from, "Okay I support Bernie's policies of living wage for all, higher taxes on the 1 percent, Medicare for all" to..."MAGA!!" ??

I mean...HOW? I really wish I understood the logic there, because these are the people who might flip flop either way on the general election depending on the Dem candidate.


While 100% of Buttigiegís supporters said they would support Bernie against Trump (if that were the General Election matchup), only 79% of Bernieís supporters said they would vote for Buttigieg over Trump in a General Election.

And they treat Pete the same way (almost) as they treat Warren. WTH? Is the takeway that Pete supporters are pragmatic with their eyes on the big picture (beating Trump) while a quarter of Bernie supporters will bolt if they don't get their way?

Do any Bernie supporters on the forum feel this way? If so, could you share your thoughts?

Bernie is about Bernie. He's not a Democrat, and he has done very little for the party except to not join it but still expect its money and infrastructure to help him when he runs for president.

He waited a hell of a long time to endorse Hillary, signaling very clearly in 2016 to his supporters that his support for a Democratic nominee other than himself was not automatic. I frankly am not hugely surprised that this "logic" motivates a not insubstantial part of his fan base. (Guessing they are mostly men, and mostly white, and mostly straight.)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 19, 2019, 09:46:48 AM
From my witnessing, many Bernie voters are ďBernie or BustĒ. The DNC vastly underrated how detested Clinton was (or relied on the assumption that Trump was detested more), and the underhanded methods they used to get her through the primary only exacerbated that for anti-Clinton and Bernie fans, Iíd imagine.

I wonder since Bernie is widely considered not a Democrat, if that is also why Hillary won the primary since several states only let registered parties vote in primaries, And I imagine many of his potential voters were/are outside of major party affiliations, and unable to vote unless they updated their registration.

Now with Biden expected to jump in within the next week, there is no telling how this is going to go. The Democratic primary race is going to be just as nailbiting is the presidential one. Since there was radio silence on Biden for sometime, thatís how we ended up with polls already trying to predict where Bidenís supporters would go. If Biden jumps in though, and now it looks like he will, it changes the game drastically.

Itís no secret that even after the backlash of 2016, the DNC is annoyed by Bernie Sanders and wishes he would just go away. I imagine they do not like that his radical/socialist are being drawn using Democrat ink, not too much unlike Trumpís pseudo-republican persona is being represented as republican.

I just canít wait for the day that the electoral college is gone, and major parties are redefined as merely radical fringes. And every single American can just vote for the person they believe has the best ideas and is the best fit for President.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: former player on April 19, 2019, 09:58:44 AM
There are misogynists on the left of politics as well as the right.  Any straight white male rather than a woman, right?

They probably won't admit it, though.  Quite possibly, not even to themselves.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on April 19, 2019, 09:59:30 AM
I just canít wait for the day that the electoral college is gone, and major parties are redefined as merely radical fringes. And every single American can just vote for the person they believe has the best ideas and is the best fit for President.
... and ranked choice voting so that voters are less pressured to use game theory to choose whom to vote for.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 19, 2019, 10:08:54 AM
There are misogynists on the left of politics as well as the right.  Any straight white male rather than a woman, right?

They probably won't admit it, though.  Quite possibly, not even to themselves.

You may be right, but we'd have to extend that to "misogynists and homophobes" to account for the Warren/Buttigieg data listed in the article. But you bring up a good point, and I'd like to see if the same 26%-21% chunk would also refuse to back straight white men like Biden or O'Rourke. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on April 19, 2019, 06:26:32 PM
Is anyone else predicting that a republican will break out and run, and the RNC will back them over Trump?

I predicted in another thread that Trump won't run at all.  I think he does not enjoy being president, and there's no real point in doing another term in his mind.  He has achieved his goal of being the president and there's nothing left to gain.  He is probably heading into his last 10-15 years of his life, why spend 4 of them doing something he doesn't enjoy?
Sure thereís a point. To win re-election and prove that people like him and approve of him. One final middle finger to everyone that didnít recognize his brilliance. At least thatís how I assume he sees it.

Another point: to stay out of jail. He can't be indicted as long as he's a sitting president.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Cressida on April 19, 2019, 10:44:02 PM
The DNC vastly underrated how detested Clinton was (or relied on the assumption that Trump was detested more), and the underhanded methods they used to get her through the primary only exacerbated that for anti-Clinton and Bernie fans, Iíd imagine.

Clinton "got through the primary" by "winning more votes" in "elections." The 2008 primary was far closer than 2016. She didn't need any help.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: vern on April 20, 2019, 12:45:48 AM
The DNC vastly underrated how detested Clinton was (or relied on the assumption that Trump was detested more), and the underhanded methods they used to get her through the primary only exacerbated that for anti-Clinton and Bernie fans, Iíd imagine.

Clinton "got through the primary" by "winning more votes" in "elections." The 2008 primary was far closer than 2016. She didn't need any help.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbK17e2X4AABmf2?format=jpg&name=medium)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 20, 2019, 04:10:13 AM
The DNC vastly underrated how detested Clinton was (or relied on the assumption that Trump was detested more), and the underhanded methods they used to get her through the primary only exacerbated that for anti-Clinton and Bernie fans, Iíd imagine.

Clinton "got through the primary" by "winning more votes" in "elections." The 2008 primary was far closer than 2016. She didn't need any help.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

Btw I supported Hilary, simply for the fact that I thought she could win against Trump.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on April 22, 2019, 09:21:32 AM
Now that we're seeing Elizabeth Warren unleash her policy shop, I continue to wonder why she didn't challenge Clinton in 2016. Sanders' success was proof that there was room to challenge Clinton from the left. Perhaps she could have been a less sore loser than Sanders, or--perhaps--she would have been challenging Trump in the general election, and not have been uniquely vulnerable because of her public marriage problems.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on April 22, 2019, 06:28:59 PM
CNN is having like a five hour town hall thing tonight.  Klobuchar just finished; Warren is on now.  Sanders, Harris, and Buttigieg are up in the next several hours.  It looks like it is one hour per candidate.

After watching it so far, I like Klobuchar more than I did before and I like Warren less than I did before.

Also, news reports are that Biden is going to run but has pushed back his entry into the race from Wednesday to not sure when.  No explanation as to why that I heard.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on April 22, 2019, 07:28:38 PM
thanks for posting about that.  I'm listening to Bernie Sanders and he does have more energy than I expected.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 22, 2019, 07:42:54 PM
thanks for posting about that.  I'm listening to Bernie Sanders and he does have more energy than I expected.

I donít know why, but that made me lol.

Iíve been watching the Townhall since the beginning. I never really heard much from Klobuchar, or Warren other than when I read her finance book she wrote with her daughter. I was impressed with both, especially their earnestness. I truly believe they feel moved to run for president and itís not merely an end goal or a power grab.  Iím leaning a little more towards Warren out of the bunch Iíve seen so far. I respect Sanders and also feel he is genuine. But I donít think half of his ideas would pass through legislation. And I really donít think tuition should be 100% free, at least not anytime soon. Not until we can get the high school graduation level up for all students and communities. Even just the fact that someone is in the position to go to college, is a privilege above many who struggle from grade school on. Also I donít like the idea of paying for someone to go to school, whose family could afford to pay. I understand he is probably most likely referring to state colleges or vouchers to private colleges. That is a possibility I suppose.

I donít care that he is a millionaire. Someone at his age with a six-figure plus income all of these yearsÖ I would be suspicious if he wasnít and would question his money management skills. Also, heís just too old in my opinion. I canít get over the fact that if he were to become president, by the end of his second term he would be nearly 90. And Iím sitting here trying to picture someone at that age, flitting around internationally to meet with world leaders, or even traveling frequently within the states, to meet with local leaders and communities during national disasters.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 23, 2019, 07:09:08 AM
Takeaways from the Town Hall...

Klobuchar - In all fairness, I only saw about 15 minutes total, in small chunks. She seemed low energy to me. I was not impressed.

Warren - Twitter said she nailed it, but I only saw about 20 minutes total, in small chunks. She is very bright, no question, and I do like her. I just don't know if she connects with voters. I don't know that some of her proposals like paying off most student loan debt are doable. She didn't answer several questions, including the "Name one way you are different than Obama" one. She just launched into a story about how he refused to throw her and Consumer Protection under the bus.

Bernie - I watched the whole thing. Age is catching up to him. He'd be 79 by next year's general election. That means he either voluntarily offers to be a one-termer, which makes him a lame duck from the beginning, or else he'd be 87 years old at end of a second term. That seems to be a problem. Not much new from him overall I appreciate his convictions (like on arguing that presently incarcerated should be able to vote), and I think the 'millionaire' argument against him is ridiculous. I still love Bernie but I'm not backing him in the primary anymore.

Harris - I was underwhelmed. She seemed very nervous and rehearsed, while not actually saying a whole lot. Too many answers seemed to end with "let's study that" or "we need to have a conversation about that." I understand that none of these people are going to have an answer for every single possible question in the world, but she seemed to fall back on those lines a lot. I appreciate her strong anti-gun violence stance, and I do think she would be tough(er) for Trump to ridicule.

Buttigieg - I thought he was the most impressive. Answered questions instead of pivoting. Just a superior speaker, almost ridiculously so. He seems honest and admits that he screwed up on the house razing issues in South Bend. I don't know what all the candidates' IQs are but, damn, I can't believe he wouldn't be at or near the top. And the young crowd adored him. He is going to start pulling some of Bernie's youth vote away, no question. I do wish Pete would have shown a bit more energy, but I know he had a 5am event that morning so I thought he did a great job standing and engaging and really not missing a beat. (Oh and he had the best line of the night)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: sherr on April 23, 2019, 07:37:41 AM
That means he either voluntarily offers to be a one-termer, which makes him a lame duck from the beginning,

Complete nit-pick, but "lame duck" refers to the two months or so between when your successor has been elected and when you actually leave office. The Republicans tried to re-define it to be longer to justify ignoring Obama's supreme court pick for a year, and I find it annoying that they largely succeeded. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a one-term anything if that's your goal.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 23, 2019, 08:01:04 AM
That means he either voluntarily offers to be a one-termer, which makes him a lame duck from the beginning,

Complete nit-pick, but "lame duck" refers to the two months or so between when your successor has been elected and when you actually leave office. The Republicans tried to re-define it to be longer to justify ignoring Obama's supreme court pick for a year, and I find it annoying that they largely succeeded. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a one-term anything if that's your goal.

True. The phrase is also used sometimes to describe the last year or so of a President's term when she/he cannot run again. My point, not very well made I admit, was that presidents these days start running for reelection almost immediately when they take office. The election cycle gets longer and longer. I think Bernie would have to communicate pretty early in his term whether or not he was going to seek re-election or whether he would hand the baton to his vp.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on April 24, 2019, 12:17:46 PM
We are still swallowing Trump, who was the oldest president ever elected. Why is moving the age forward another few years so terrible?

79 today isn't like 79 was when we were growing up (I was a child during the 1980's). Octagenarians are doing all sorts of demanding jobs all the time.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 24, 2019, 01:56:40 PM
We are still swallowing Trump, who was the oldest president ever elected. Why is moving the age forward another few years so terrible?

79 today isn't like 79 was when we were growing up (I was a child during the 1980's). Octagenarians are doing all sorts of demanding jobs all the time.

Because for most octogenarians, the act of dropping dead or becoming incapacitated wonít send the entire country into upheaval.

Also, and I am speaking just for myself, I would not prop Trump up as a case for elderly governing leaders.


Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on April 25, 2019, 06:00:10 AM
Surprising nobody, Joe Biden is officially in.

On another note, I predicted somewhere before, possibly in this thread, that Senator Harris was the biggest threat to beat Trump.  After the town hall, I no longer believe this.  I think Mayor Buttigieg is the biggest threat.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: jinga nation on April 25, 2019, 07:02:14 AM
Surprising nobody, Joe Biden is officially in.

On another note, I predicted somewhere before, possibly in this thread, that Senator Harris was the biggest threat to beat Trump.  After the town hall, I no longer believe this.  I think Mayor Buttigieg is the biggest threat.

Peak early... you lose. Gotta do it The Donald WayTM by coming from a wildcard position to punching and stabbing opponents in the back and face. Art of the Deal, folks.

I ain't making decisions until the debates start.

On the other side, I want to see how much registered Republican antipathy for Trump will translate into votes for Bill Weld. I can see Trump trolling him "Will Melt, not tough. Weak. SAD!!!"
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: jinga nation on April 25, 2019, 07:06:39 AM
The Media selects the President, not the people.

Big Networks gave Trump the most airtime, hence more eyeballs, more time into their noggins. Which is why his crazy speeches and tweets got him so much unnecessary attention. If he had been ignored like the crazy old uncle at a party, we'd have had a different primary R candidate selected.

Americans don't vote rationally, but vote emotionally. Trump got to their basic instincts. Let's see if anyone on the D side can replicate his intensity for 2020.

Otherwise D-Vision 2020 is myopia.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on April 25, 2019, 08:09:34 AM
The Media selects the President, not the people.

Big Networks gave Trump the most airtime, hence more eyeballs, more time into their noggins. Which is why his crazy speeches and tweets got him so much unnecessary attention. If he had been ignored like the crazy old uncle at a party, we'd have had a different primary R candidate selected.

Americans don't vote rationally, but vote emotionally. Trump got to their basic instincts. Let's see if anyone on the D side can replicate his intensity for 2020.

Otherwise D-Vision 2020 is myopia.

Agreed. This is one of the reasons I've never believed Warren has a snowball's chance. She's not dynamic enough. She's not fun to watch. She's not exciting. She's kind of... beige.

(This, of course, has nothing to do with her policies. It's sad, but true.)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on April 25, 2019, 08:19:38 AM
Surprising nobody, Joe Biden is officially in.

On another note, I predicted somewhere before, possibly in this thread, that Senator Harris was the biggest threat to beat Trump.  After the town hall, I no longer believe this.  I think Mayor Buttigieg is the biggest threat.

A propos of nothing, John McCain's family is apparently throwing their support behind Biden.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mccain-family-to-support-biden-in-2020-race-in-bid-to-defeat-trump?fbclid=IwAR3KeL3RQV5ROg1QGO4Y1t5Vd3EZxLrVpyDuIdFpGZZtRm4XsQblni5Z1QA
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 25, 2019, 08:20:22 AM
Surprising nobody, Joe Biden is officially in.

On another note, I predicted somewhere before, possibly in this thread, that Senator Harris was the biggest threat to beat Trump.  After the town hall, I no longer believe this.  I think Mayor Buttigieg is the biggest threat.

Peak early... you lose. Gotta do it The Donald WayTM by coming from a wildcard position to punching and stabbing opponents in the back and face. Art of the Deal, folks.

I ain't making decisions until the debates start.

On the other side, I want to see how much registered Republican antipathy for Trump will translate into votes for Bill Weld. I can see Trump trolling him "Will Melt, not tough. Weak. SAD!!!"

I don't think Buttigieg has gotten anywhere close to peaking. I would anticipate his Q2 fundraising numbers at least double that of his Q1. Hell, it might more than double. The (not surprising) attacks from the religious right, including Franklin Graham, might hurt Pete's momentum, or they might actually strengthen it. I gave Pete another donation today because of the attacks.

I agree that things don't get serious until June. Someone like Tim Ryan or Julian Castro or even Yang could impress during the debates.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on April 25, 2019, 10:08:22 AM
I am tempted to back Biden, just to see the show down. I hesitate to say I think he would win, because I have a feeling if he got to the GE, we would have another ďso closeĒ moment. Rumor is out that John McCainís family will back Biden; that could definitely turn moderate Republicans who are sick and by Trump. A huge advantage most of the other candidates do not have.

Unfortunately/fortunately, I canít decide how I feel, I think he will get to the GE. Too many people vote for nostalgic reasons, and what they believe is the safe bet. Despite the craziness going on for the last few years, Iím kind of bored and want new blood and new ideas in a new direction. I donít want to go back to the Obama era. Even though I like Obama.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on April 25, 2019, 11:04:06 AM
If anyone was curious, here were the March forum poll results. I'll probably do another poll in June after the debates to compare the numbers.

Cory Booker 3 (1.9%)
Julian Castro 3 (1.9%)
John Delaney 1 (0.6%)
Tulsi Gabbard 7 (4.5%)
Kamala Harris 24 (15.4%)
John Hickenlooper 7 (4.5%)
Jay Inslee 3 (1.9%)
Amy Klobuchar 8 (5.1%)
Beto O'Rourke 23 (14.7%)
Bernie Sanders 18 (11.5%)
Elizabeth Warren 20 (12.8%)
Marianne Williamson0 (0%)
Andrew Yang 9 (5.8%)
Joe Biden (if he announces) 21 (13.5%)
Pete Buttigieg (exploratory) 8 (5.1%)
Kirsten Gillibrand (exploratory) 1 (0.6%)
Total Members Voted: 95
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: soccerluvof4 on April 25, 2019, 02:36:14 PM
If anyone was curious, here were the March forum poll results. I'll probably do another poll in June after the debates to compare the numbers.

Cory Booker 3 (1.9%)
Julian Castro 3 (1.9%)
John Delaney 1 (0.6%)
Tulsi Gabbard 7 (4.5%)
Kamala Harris 24 (15.4%)
John Hickenlooper 7 (4.5%)
Jay Inslee 3 (1.9%)
Amy Klobuchar 8 (5.1%)
Beto O'Rourke 23 (14.7%)
Bernie Sanders 18 (11.5%)
Elizabeth Warren 20 (12.8%)
Marianne Williamson0 (0%)
Andrew Yang 9 (5.8%)
Joe Biden (if he announces) 21 (13.5%)
Pete Buttigieg (exploratory) 8 (5.1%)
Kirsten Gillibrand (exploratory) 1 (0.6%)
Total Members Voted: 95


Those are interesting numbers for sure, but i would predict Bernie would jump a lot with a younger crowd. Surprised how high Warren is I doubt she could win her own State. She like vs any republican but not against her own party. Be curious as to what others who have people running from their own state feel there Candidate is/would do.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate on April 25, 2019, 03:49:16 PM
Quote from: soccerluvof4 link=topic=101697.msg2357664#msg2357664
Those are interesting numbers for sure, but i would predict Bernie would jump a lot with a younger crowd. Surprised how high Warren is I doubt she could win her own State. She like vs any republican but not against her own party. Be curious as to what others who have people running from their own state feel there Candidate is/would do.
Being in Indiana, Buttigieg being the nominee would certainly make things interesting, but I doubt he could carry the state like Obama did in 2008. Even though he was no Mitch Daniels, having Pence on the ticket certainly helps Trump in the land of Hoosiers. Additionally, Trump's steel tariffs would make it difficult for Buttigieg to gather significant union support in the steel producing parts of the state.

While Buttigieg probably woulnd't carry his home state, I think he would do quite well in the surrounding battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on April 26, 2019, 12:28:19 PM
I actually think Trump's strategy is to ignore Weld. Pretend he doesn't exist, not say his name or even mention him. It's not hard to win primaries when you're the incumbent president.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: JetBlast on April 28, 2019, 12:52:04 PM
Finally had the time to watch through all the CNN town hall appearances.

Klobuchar:  I still agree with her more than the others from a policy perspective, but didnít think it was a great showing from her. She seemed to kinda get stuck in the details and ramble on some answers instead of giving clean, crisp responses. Thatís not going to work in the general election. She needs to proudly own that sheís not pushing for single payer healthcare or student loan forgiveness. It felt more like she was apologizing. Basically, she needs to get more polished on stage but I like the policy proposals.

Warren:  She comes across as smart and genuine. I think sheíd hold her own on stage with Trump. Thatís the good. Now the bad. Her wealth tax is in my mind an unworkable, unconstitutional monster. Her student debt plan should be renamed the ďBill Gates pays for your collegeĒ plan.  Her emphasizing that the proposed tax is only 2% of wealth (I believe 3% above $1 billion) doesnít change the fact that itís forcing a handful of Americans to pay the debts millions of others freely entered into. It just strikes me as morally wrong. I also donít like the slippery slope of a wealth tax. How long before the FIRE crowd sees their $1-2 million stash targeted?

Sanders:  Like Warren he seems passionate and genuine. His heart is in the right place. Also like Warren, I think his economic policies are generally bad ideas. I just donít see myself supporting someone that far to the left economically. Like with Warren, Iíd probably vote third party if heís the nominee.

Harris:  Very polished but I felt like I came away barely knowing more about her positions than going into the town hall. Lots of responses that sheíd like to study an issue and little substance beyond the single payer healthcare discussion. I did really like the response to the question about her racial background and how it informed her thinking. I just donít know enough from that appearance to really form an opinion on her as a presidential candidate.

Buttigieg:  Very impressive given his age and level of political experience, but still thin on policy at this point. Whatís interesting to me about him is that my parents saw him on one of the Sunday morning shows and were impressed. They were both Gary Johnson voters in 2016 because they disliked both Clinton and Trump. The Republicans havenít spent a lot of effort the last few years trying to define him yet as compared to Warren, Harris, or Sanders. Maybe that makes it easier for him to pull in swing voters that donít have preconceived notions of him? His youth and inexperience might actually be an advantage (Reagan rolls over in his grave).

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on April 28, 2019, 01:26:34 PM
Honestly, I know there are a lot of blue state Americans who would love to have the kind of socialist utopia that they have in Scandinavia, but if the Democrats want to win the election then they need to nominate someone who will appeal to the kind of person that far-left socialists hate: moderate white people who live in flyover states. They have to get over the fact that they think Uncle Elmer clipping his hedges on a Sunday afternoon in Grand Rapids, Michigan is a descendant of thieving, murdering rapists and consider that Uncle Elmer thinks maybe we should promote job creation where he lives instead of just in San Francisco.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 28, 2019, 02:31:39 PM
The Dem candidate list has ballooned from massive to unwieldy, even with the help of various fivethirtyeight info-graphics. Nevertheless, I don't figure that any of the candidates are that strong: Bernie blew his wad last time, Biden is a bit of a creeper, a lot of the others have really bad names (Swalwell? Yeah right). I have a fondness for Mayor Pete but he is small-time and probably has the Beto problem: the more you learn about him, the less substance is there. I'm going to guess right now that the nominee will be a female (my gut says it will be Warren for no rational reason).

Anecdata (vaguely related to WTC's post): today while driving around the Confederacy, I went under a bridge that was covered in Trump supporters waving American flags. Not sure what inspired them to do so on a Sunday morning but it was a bit of a surprise. Everyone's getting into gear for 2020, which will probably feel like the longest Presidential election ever!
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on May 01, 2019, 10:26:51 AM
I'm beginning to settle on Warren as my favorite candidate. She's got substance and integrity. She cares.

https://www.thenation.com/article/elizabeth-warren-policy-ideas-primary-2020/
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: ematicic on May 01, 2019, 10:42:34 AM
Curious to know what you all think of the AOC effect. The Green New Deal is a massive overhaul that offers much of what Democrats traditionally campaign on. Many of the candidates seem to be focusing on the elements within such as climate control, debt forgiveness for tuition, and immigration, but not many seem to have a way ahead that addresses the total package.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate on May 01, 2019, 10:52:01 AM
I have a fondness for Mayor Pete but he is small-time and probably has the Beto problem: the more you learn about him, the less substance is there.
For what it's worth, I thought something very similar about Clinton being small-time back in early 90s, and we know how that ended. While it seems obvious now, let's not forget that he was a no-name Governor from hicksville Arkansas (do they even have electricity?) that decided to run against an extremely popular (at the time Clinton got in the race) sitting President who had just clobbered Saddam Hussein in a 100 hour war.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on May 01, 2019, 10:52:16 AM
Curious to know what you all think of the AOC effect. The Green New Deal is a massive overhaul that offers much of what Democrats traditionally campaign on. Many of the candidates seem to be focusing on the elements within such as climate control, debt forgiveness for tuition, and immigration, but not many seem to have a way ahead that addresses the total package.

If I'm not mistaken, about half a dozen of the POTUS candidates in the Congress have signed on as co-sponsors of the GND, so there is at least tacit approval.  However, I don't know how popular the GND is with independents, so I think the candidates are trying to perform a balancing act.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on May 01, 2019, 09:13:28 PM
Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado is teasing an announcement about running.  He would be official candidate #21.  Wowzers.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on May 02, 2019, 07:03:49 AM
Mayor Pete is on the cover of time. http://time.com/

And the buzz apparently is that Oprah likes him, although she apparently can't pronounce his name (so not sure how much she's dug into him, or if she's just being playful). I disagree with people who say he is peaking too early. People who see him generally like him, even if they don't think he is liberal enough. And when you start with ZERO name recognition, and when you're running against candidates who have a LOT of recognition, huge networks already built, staffs of over 200 people, and senate funds they can raid when they want, you have such a gigantic hole to climb out of that you have to be aggressive in seeking media attention and donors. People may get sick of him; we'll see. But I can't fault the strategy. You have to take your shot.

His campaign manager is working her ass off.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: madgeylou on May 09, 2019, 12:30:32 PM
I'm beginning to settle on Warren as my favorite candidate. She's got substance and integrity. She cares.

https://www.thenation.com/article/elizabeth-warren-policy-ideas-primary-2020/

She is out here KILLING IT with the policy proposals and shaking hands and listening to people. I am stunned by her energy, stamina, and passion. I'm all in for her (though of course I will vote for a sentient Ziploc bag if it gets the Dem nomination).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: andy85 on May 14, 2019, 09:18:03 AM
Tulsi Gabbard did a 2.5hr podcast with Rogan yesterday. I'm about a half hour into so far...decent stuff...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR8UcnwLH24
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on May 14, 2019, 09:34:13 AM
What do you think of Elizabeth Warren's Republican past? For me, it's a bonus as I've gone through a similar though less striking change in my life. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/12/elizabeth-warren-profile-young-republican-2020-president-226613
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on May 14, 2019, 12:01:46 PM
I keep going back and forth on Warren.

I like much of what she stands for, and she's obviously brilliant. I used to be a Republican too, so I don't hold that against her. People are allowed to change and grow.

But on the other hand, she is going around bragging about not hitting up big money donors ("bundlers") in her Presidential run, but she still transferred $10M from her Senate fund to her Presidential fund and, guess what, she used bundlers and accepted those $2,700 checks for her Senate campaign, so she's just doing an 'end round.'

That strikes me as very hypocritical, and not very smart either. Does she really think she's going to raise enough cash to win the primary (and then win a general???) without high-dollar donors?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on May 14, 2019, 05:01:26 PM
What do you think of Elizabeth Warren's Republican past? For me, it's a bonus as I've gone through a similar though less striking change in my life. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/12/elizabeth-warren-profile-young-republican-2020-president-226613

I canít see that as a problem. I appreciate people who can grow and think critically. And the Republican party of her youth was not the vile cancer it is today.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on May 14, 2019, 05:13:22 PM
'

That strikes me as very hypocritical, and not very smart either. Does she really think she's going to raise enough cash to win the primary (and then win a general???) without high-dollar donors?

I guess we'll see. If it works, everyone will be hailing it as genius. It will revolutionize how politics are done in this country. I mean, we've just had an extended lesson on how being selfish, corrupt, and criminal wins all the prizes.  I want a Hollywood ending where good triumphs over evil.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on May 14, 2019, 09:44:02 PM
'

That strikes me as very hypocritical, and not very smart either. Does she really think she's going to raise enough cash to win the primary (and then win a general???) without high-dollar donors?

I guess we'll see. If it works, everyone will be hailing it as genius. It will revolutionize how politics are done in this country. I mean, we've just had an extended lesson on how being selfish, corrupt, and criminal wins all the prizes.  I want a Hollywood ending where good triumphs over evil.

I'm interested to see how this plays out as well. I can see funds transparency being more important during the Democratic primary race, and having the most transparent and "morally acceptable" sources of donations could have non-monetary value in terms of making a candidate more attractive to voters, thus ramping up individual support where it really counts, at the ballot box.

However, this appears to only be a game the Democrats are playing and I can see donation promises being broken by whoever gets on the Democrat ticket during the primary since it doesn't seem republican voters/ Trump supporters in general, care about donation sources and will not put their candidate on the same moral tightrope the Democrats do.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on May 20, 2019, 07:14:01 AM
Pete crushed it on Fox last night. Did anyone watch him?

I thought Wallace was fair. He pushed Pete on abortion, his lack of black support, and some other issues, but journalists are supposed to push back and dig deeper, so no complaints. The crowd (who I suppose Pete had a hand in picking) nodding, clapping and cheering for most all of his answers created some great optics for people viewing at home. Pete came out swinging hard for women's reproductive rights and made his position clear. Oh, and calling out Ingraham and Tucker Carlson (on FOX!) for their moronic statements (on FOX!) was so satisfying!

Now did he win any new supporters? Who knows? Even if he just won over a few, I think it was a good move. His campaign manager is awesome.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 20, 2019, 07:48:30 PM
I was able to see a clip of Pete's interview on Fox and was very impressed.  I don't have regular TV so not sure how I could see the whole interview.
But was reading a Washington Post article about Biden's rally in Philadelphia, and the article included various news clips.
I was also impressed with Biden's enthusiasm and energy during this rally.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/19/biden-end-beginning/?utm_term=.4f95ec2c1100&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: former player on May 21, 2019, 04:08:24 AM
I was able to see a clip of Pete's interview on Fox and was very impressed.  I don't have regular TV so not sure how I could see the whole interview.

The whole thing is up on youtube -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p97xg-keEKg
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on May 21, 2019, 05:03:15 AM
I was impressed with him, but then again I expected to be because I am nearly always impressed by him. I like that he isn't hyperbolic, as many presidential candidates of past and present are; it makes the times he does come out swinging, even that much more savage. Just an observation in terms of delivery, I like how he doesn't tend to feed off of the crowd's energy when he's talking to someone. by that I mean he has this habit of making you forget there's an audience, pausing to allow the applause and hooplah to pass, while straight faced and waiting to finish his thought. His "I don't care"comment in response to Trump's tweets, was so impactful because while a natural urge would get a self-satisfied smirk at the audience's explosive reaction, he continued focusing on Wallace, and letting the words hang there in his expression, conveying even more so that he really doesn't care about Trump's insults, and wasn't just playing at being non chalant.

He has great natural instincts and while I don't know yet who I will support, he is the one I am most excited to see in the debates. I think he has a killer combination of great natural instincts and learned behavior (I can tell how much his philosophy studies have guided his interactions with people and his motivations).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on May 21, 2019, 08:45:32 AM
I was able to see a clip of Pete's interview on Fox and was very impressed.  I don't have regular TV so not sure how I could see the whole interview.
But was reading a Washington Post article about Biden's rally in Philadelphia, and the article included various news clips.
I was also impressed with Biden's enthusiasm and energy during this rally.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/19/biden-end-beginning/?utm_term=.4f95ec2c1100&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

Didn't the President also have a rally last night? I think he mentioned that he might run for additional terms after the second one...
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on May 21, 2019, 06:07:43 PM
I am tempted to back Biden, just to see the show down. I hesitate to say I think he would win, because I have a feeling if he got to the GE, we would have another ďso closeĒ moment. Rumor is out that John McCainís family will back Biden; that could definitely turn moderate Republicans who are sick and by Trump. A huge advantage most of the other candidates do not have.

He's the most likely to win against Trump in the general election.  He needs to hope the economy goes to shit, though, before then.  Go Biden, but don't cut SS.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/05/17/joe-biden-has-called-for-social-security-cuts-3-ti.aspx
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on May 23, 2019, 10:30:29 AM
I am tempted to back Biden, just to see the show down. I hesitate to say I think he would win, because I have a feeling if he got to the GE, we would have another ďso closeĒ moment. Rumor is out that John McCainís family will back Biden; that could definitely turn moderate Republicans who are sick and by Trump. A huge advantage most of the other candidates do not have.

He's the most likely to win against Trump in the general election.  He needs to hope the economy goes to shit, though, before then.  Go Biden, but don't cut SS.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/05/17/joe-biden-has-called-for-social-security-cuts-3-ti.aspx

Yuck don't agree with Biden's efforts at cutting SS benefits.

And if the stock market continues its downward march, and trade situation worsens around the globe, we may very well see a recession starting sometime this year or by 2020
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on June 07, 2019, 12:24:57 PM
I've made up my mind. Elizabeth Warren. 

This is a great article.  https://thebulwark.com/why-elizabeth-warren-matters
And all her plans are here, I think:  https://medium.com/@teamwarren
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on June 07, 2019, 01:31:45 PM
The debates are close enough now (after the seemingly endless number of town halls) that I'm actually getting excited to see the candidates face off. We'll find out next week how they are paired up. I think I read that, of the top nine candidates (going down to Castro), that 4 of them will be randomly put in one debate, and the other 5 in the other, so there will be "some tier" people in each.

I am hoping for Bernie and Biden to be matched up, as I think Bernie is the most likely to come after him aggressively.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on June 07, 2019, 04:30:41 PM
The debates are close enough now (after the seemingly endless number of town halls) that I'm actually getting excited to see the candidates face off. We'll find out next week how they are paired up. I think I read that, of the top nine candidates (going down to Castro), that 4 of them will be randomly put in one debate, and the other 5 in the other, so there will be "some tier" people in each.

I am hoping for Bernie and Biden to be matched up, as I think Bernie is the most likely to come after him aggressively.

I thought it was totally random.  But maybe they changed the rules again.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on June 07, 2019, 05:36:26 PM
The debates are close enough now (after the seemingly endless number of town halls) that I'm actually getting excited to see the candidates face off. We'll find out next week how they are paired up. I think I read that, of the top nine candidates (going down to Castro), that 4 of them will be randomly put in one debate, and the other 5 in the other, so there will be "some tier" people in each.

I am hoping for Bernie and Biden to be matched up, as I think Bernie is the most likely to come after him aggressively.

I thought it was totally random.  But maybe they changed the rules again.

Yeah they changed the rules to make sure a few of the top tier people are in each one (maybe for ratings).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on June 07, 2019, 10:02:46 PM
The debates are close enough now (after the seemingly endless number of town halls) that I'm actually getting excited to see the candidates face off. We'll find out next week how they are paired up. I think I read that, of the top nine candidates (going down to Castro), that 4 of them will be randomly put in one debate, and the other 5 in the other, so there will be "some tier" people in each.

I am hoping for Bernie and Biden to be matched up, as I think Bernie is the most likely to come after him aggressively.

I thought it was totally random.  But maybe they changed the rules again.

Yeah they changed the rules to make sure a few of the top tier people are in each one (maybe for ratings).

Makes sense.  I am guessing that the field will narrow quite a bit after the first debate or two (or first primary/caucus or two), so I think they'll be able to fit into one debate soon enough.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 08, 2019, 12:45:16 PM
Do you think the debates will be available on youtube ?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: former player on June 08, 2019, 01:25:08 PM
Do you think the debates will be available on youtube ?

Streamed live, I should think, either on youtube or the relevant networks - NBC/MSNBC for the first, I think.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: pecunia on June 08, 2019, 03:21:51 PM
From the link:

The opening Democratic debate of the 2020 election cycle is on June 26 and June 27 in Miami, Florida. The event will take place over the course of two days due to the high volume of candidates vying for the party's nomination and the opportunity take on President Donald Trump.

There are currently 20 Democrats who are eligible to partake in the event, according to an analysis by CNN. That includes many of the race's top contenders, like Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

https://www.newsweek.com/2020-democratic-primary-debates-schedule-candidates-qualified (https://www.newsweek.com/2020-democratic-primary-debates-schedule-candidates-qualified)

I guess I just don't get why any one of them shouldn't beat Mr. Trump.  It's pretty obvious he was a crook before he got into the White House and has been quite the liar after he entered his new domicile.  I don't think al the crap they lay at the Donald's feet is "fake news."

So what characteristics are desirable, better fiscal policy?, fix the health care thing?, no more of these foreign wars?, take the climate thing seriously, help with the student loan issue, etc.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on June 10, 2019, 04:31:03 PM
^ I think in the current Democratic primary culture, progressive agenda is going to be the be-all-end-all for many democrats. Biden will very quickly find out that this is not a presidential election cycle like ye olden days, and being a centrist ďgood ole boyĒ might not be the safe bet (for primaries anyway).

He got to coast while Obama did the heavy lifting in 08 and 12, but he just does not seem motivated enough to do what it takes to secure the bid and I have a feeling his polls will continue to fall as othersí rise. I knew he had no innovative ideas or agenda when his announcement video came out and the main focus was racial injustice and Charlottesville. It was weak, pandering, and lazy.

I saw an old video on the Daily Show of an interaction he had in a hearing with Elizabeth Warren, where she came with facts and he came with zingers, And when she fired against his zingers with those facts, all he could do was put on a shit eating grin and say well youíre a smart one arenít you... or something equally condescending, And that pretty much confirmed what I already knew, that heís not there to make real change and solve real problems. Maybe a long time ago he was, but he seems to have settled in to politics quite nicely and by that point of the video, and it was clear that he was more concerned at maintaining the status quo until he retired or died.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: pecunia on June 10, 2019, 08:49:17 PM
I read a book Elizabeth Warren wrote about her history.  I was kind of impressed.  Poor girl makes good.  I like some of what Trump does, but he strikes me as having been born with the silver spoon in his mouth.  It might be good to get a people's candidate this time.  Sometimes, they can relate more to the average Joe or Jane. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on June 12, 2019, 09:58:29 AM
Speaking of Warren, it looks like she has finally pulled ahead of Bernie in some new polls. In both of the newest Economist/YourGov polls, she leads him 16% to 12% (Biden is at 26/27% and Mayor Pete is at 8%)

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/

Still a very long way to go, but this has to help her with fundraising. We'll find out the candidate debate slots on Friday morning. I would suspect both she and Pete will perform well at the debate, and I'm assuming someone will "have a moment" and come out of nowhere. Any guesses who that will end up being?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on June 12, 2019, 12:18:35 PM
I read a book Elizabeth Warren wrote about her history.  I was kind of impressed.  Poor girl makes good.  I like some of what Trump does, but he strikes me as having been born with the silver spoon in his mouth.  It might be good to get a people's candidate this time.  Sometimes, they can relate more to the average Joe or Jane.

Can you be more specific about your Trump comment? What is an issue on which you'd prefer Trump's position to Warren's?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: v8rx7guy on June 12, 2019, 04:46:19 PM
I read a book Elizabeth Warren wrote about her history.  I was kind of impressed.  Poor girl makes good.  I like some of what Trump does, but he strikes me as having been born with the silver spoon in his mouth.  It might be good to get a people's candidate this time.  Sometimes, they can relate more to the average Joe or Jane.

Can you be more specific about your Trump comment? What is an issue on which you'd prefer Trump's position to Warren's?

In my opinion, blanket Student loan forgiveness, for one.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: pecunia on June 12, 2019, 05:14:57 PM
I read a book Elizabeth Warren wrote about her history.  I was kind of impressed.  Poor girl makes good.  I like some of what Trump does, but he strikes me as having been born with the silver spoon in his mouth.  It might be good to get a people's candidate this time.  Sometimes, they can relate more to the average Joe or Jane.

Can you be more specific about your Trump comment? What is an issue on which you'd prefer Trump's position to Warren's?

No, I can't.  I never said I preferred his positions over Warren's.  Sorry, man you'll have no argument from me.  There is a lot of what he does that I consider disgusting.  He lies.  He is a con man.  He wants to take health care from millions of Americans.  What I like is that he, at least, proclaims that he wants to keep jobs here.  He has been quite vocal about keeping jobs here.  Yes, unfortunately, actions speak louder than words, but other Republicans have been quite mute when it comes to helping American workers.

Unlike Warren, I never read Trump's book. (The Art of The Deal)  Unlike Warren, Trump did not write it himself.

No time to discuss this further right now.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on June 13, 2019, 01:44:01 PM
I certainly didn't want to rush you!

Can you tell me more about what you mean when you say Trump "wants to keep jobs here"? I suspect it has to do with the trade actions Trump is taking, as well as attempting to ban Huahei from the 5G infrastructure in North America and Europe.

But I also see that it might mean you're generally supportive of the immigration restrictions Trump has imposed. I know many people who--while they certainly don't like the clumsiness of how the Southern border is being handled with child separations and emergency declarations--do genuinely believe that immigration is too high, and that the priority should be adding certain skilled labor rather than re-uniting families.

Is one of these a fair summary?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on June 13, 2019, 01:50:00 PM
I read a book Elizabeth Warren wrote about her history.  I was kind of impressed.  Poor girl makes good.  I like some of what Trump does, but he strikes me as having been born with the silver spoon in his mouth.  It might be good to get a people's candidate this time.  Sometimes, they can relate more to the average Joe or Jane.

Can you be more specific about your Trump comment? What is an issue on which you'd prefer Trump's position to Warren's?

In my opinion, blanket Student loan forgiveness, for one.

Indeed the Warren loan forgiveness plan seems extreme. I would not like the incentives that would be in place for people choosing how much to borrow today knowing that there was some chance of forgiveness in 1-5 years. While I disagree with it, I also think that Warren did address one of the other criticisms--that it mostly helps high-income people--by capping the amount of forgiveness at $50,000.

What I would favor even more strongly would be loan forgiveness that was limited to loans originated prior to 2018 (no incentive problem).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on June 26, 2019, 07:25:37 AM
Any predictions on the debate tonight? Who's planning to watch?

Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, JuliŠn Castro, Amy Klobuchar, Beto OíRourke, Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee, Bill de Blasio, John Delaney, and Tim Ryan.

Does anyone have a break out moment?

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on June 26, 2019, 07:52:36 AM
I predict frustration on my part as the candidates get 60 seconds for answers and 30 seconds for followup responses.  I understand that's a necessary evil with the math of a 2 hour debate among 10 candidates, but still, I'd like more time per candidate.  I guess that will happen soon enough as the field is winnowed.

I kind of wish Senator Warren could have been in the second debate since all of the other current front runners are on night two.  I would rather see the front runners debate each other directly.

Does any candidate drop out after the first debate, or does that happen only after the first primary/caucus?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on June 26, 2019, 07:55:33 AM
I predict frustration on my part as the candidates get 60 seconds for answers and 30 seconds for followup responses.  I understand that's a necessary evil with the math of a 2 hour debate among 10 candidates, but still, I'd like more time per candidate.  I guess that will happen soon enough as the field is winnowed.

I kind of wish Senator Warren could have been in the second debate since all of the other current front runners are on night two.  I would rather see the front runners debate each other directly.

Does any candidate drop out after the first debate, or does that happen only after the first primary/caucus?

This is my frustration, as well. I would have preferred four days of 5 candidates each, even.

I told myself I wasn't going to watch. Then I told myself I would, because I haven't really been paying much attention to the individual candidates' positions on things (other than what the media screams at you in a freaking panic). But with this format, I don't feel like I'm going to get much information at all. So if I do turn it on, I'm guessing I'll get so frustrated by the format and the lack of time to learn anything about the candidates that I'll just turn it off again.

It sucks.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: J Boogie on June 26, 2019, 08:43:29 AM
Part of the problem is that running for president can be lucrative. Even if they know they don't have much of a chance, they know it will raise their profile and generate tons of press that has proven to translate quite readily into book deals/sales.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/16/2020-candidates-book-royalties-1329645

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: wenchsenior on June 26, 2019, 08:59:14 AM
Any predictions on the debate tonight? Who's planning to watch?

Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, JuliŠn Castro, Amy Klobuchar, Beto OíRourke, Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee, Bill de Blasio, John Delaney, and Tim Ryan.

Does anyone have a break out moment?

After about 15 years of closely following politics and discovering that doing so unfailingly made me angry and miserable, I began adopting more of a low-media-exposure approach, as per the "Circle of Control" concept MMM advocates.  I can't influence anything about this process of choosing a nominee until Super Tuesday (except possibly by donating, and I have no interest in doing that until later in the process, either). Therefore, I figure there is no point in me paying any but bare minimum attention to this race until mid-February 2020 at the earliest.  By that point, most of the current candidates will be out of the race and it will have been a mostly pointless waste of time and energy to have listened to them anyway.

Also, watching any politician speak under any circumstances drives my blood pressure up (this includes those I really like), so I certainly won't be watching the debates. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: pecunia on June 26, 2019, 03:10:28 PM
Any predictions on the debate tonight? Who's planning to watch?

Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, JuliŠn Castro, Amy Klobuchar, Beto OíRourke, Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee, Bill de Blasio, John Delaney, and Tim Ryan.

Does anyone have a break out moment?

Elizabeth Warren always seems to have some good numbers backing up anything she says.  Then she emphasizes it with either a personal story or the long term consequences of the current policy.  She has a good chance to shine tonight.

Tulsi Gabbard can spotlight this recent Iran incident to spotlight her views.

I think the rest will give SSID.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on June 26, 2019, 09:25:42 PM
Curious what SSID stands for.

I watched the whole thing.  I haven't read any news reviews.  My opinions on the debate:

1.  I like the single issue candidates (Inslee, Gabbard) less than the others.  I don't see how a single issue candidate, no matter how important the issue might be, can succeed.

2.  I thought Booker did better in the debate than I had thought he was doing before.  The anger has turned to determined outrage, and an eloquence was there that I hadn't seen before.

3.  Inslee looks like he needs some dental attention to his lower teeth.  Distracting.

4.  Best line of the night IMHO was Gabbard talking about LGBTQ soldiers and how she knew they both would die for each other.  There were other "sound bite" quotes that I'm sure will get used by the media, but her words there hit me.

5.  Warren was playing to not lose ground; most of the rest were playing to gain ground.  Reasonable strategies on both parts, but I think Warren lost a little ground by being conservative.

6.  I was in general confused when some of the candidates and the moderators switched into Spanish.  Nothing wrong with Spanish; all of my kids speak it to some degree and I understand a little - and I'm not advocating English as the official language of the US - but as a practical matter a lot of Americans didn't understand those parts.  ETA:  Ah, the debate was in Miami and televised on Telemundo in addition to NBC and MSNBC.  Makes more sense.

7.  There was a middle ground on assertiveness for me.  I didn't like Delaney jumping in without being called on, but I also felt that Gabbard was too meek in the first hour.

8.  O'Rourke doesn't look Presidential to me.  Neither does Deblasio.

9.  Didn't know Ryan very well but liked what I heard.  Seemed forthright and practical.

10.  Disappointed in the moderators saying they'd be ruthless on the timing and then not following through very well on that aspect of things.  And when and who they selected for 30 second followups seemed arbitrary.  Overall, though, excepting the audio glitch at the top of the second hour, NBC and the moderators acquitted themselves reasonably well.

11.  Didn't like when the candidates were debating directly with each other and talking over each other.  Mainly because I couldn't hear what either of them were saying.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Travis on June 26, 2019, 10:56:56 PM
I was pleasantly surprised how many of the questions were geared to take apart the DNC platform and asked "how would you respond to this criticism?"  Who was the woman who asked most of the first-round questions? I liked her.

I went in expecting it to be 2 hours of their usual platforms and talking points as most debates tend to be and was surprised that it was only an hour and a half of that.  I heard a fair amount of substance amidst the noise, but unfortunately many of them got cut short due to time and with 10 people on the stage I can't remember who said what.  I loved the Medicare question where damn near everybody was touting the usual "free healthcare and Medicare for all" and the one guy spoke up and said "it would put every hospital out of business." A centrist remark on a key Democrat position? I was shocked. I wanted to hear more.  There was a point early on where I wished I had a transcript of President Obama's debate points because many of them felt like repeats from 12 years ago.

I haven't been following any of the candidates yet so I can't compare tonight to anything previous, but I went away with the impression that Warren had very little to contribute.  Ryan got almost no time and flubbed what time he did get.  The guys who spoke Spanish wasted time by doing so.  Most of the candidates went overtime with platitudes long after they made their point - if they ever got to it.  The guy who said "I'm unique because I'm raising a black child" while standing next to the only black candidate was hilarious. 

Head-scratcher moment: Who bankrolls the DNC? Most of the candidates made it clear that if you're incorporated and too large to qualify as a "small business" then you're the bad guy.  One of them commented that corporations have gotten too big and need to broken up and "the free market" should take over. Didn't the free market determine one should buy out the other in the first place?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on June 26, 2019, 11:34:30 PM
I was pleasantly surprised how many of the questions were geared to take apart the DNC platform and asked "how would you respond to this criticism?"  Who was the woman who asked most of the first-round questions? I liked her.

I went in expecting it to be 2 hours of their usual platforms and talking points as most debates tend to be and was surprised that it was only an hour and a half of that.  I heard a fair amount of substance amidst the noise, but unfortunately many of them got cut short due to time and with 10 people on the stage I can't remember who said what.  I loved the Medicare question where damn near everybody was touting the usual "free healthcare and Medicare for all" and the one guy spoke up and said "it would put every hospital out of business." A centrist remark on a key Democrat position? I was shocked. I wanted to hear more.  There was a point early on where I wished I had a transcript of President Obama's debate points because many of them felt like repeats from 12 years ago.

I haven't been following any of the candidates yet so I can't compare tonight to anything previous, but I went away with the impression that Warren had very little to contribute.  Ryan got almost no time and flubbed what time he did get.  The guys who spoke Spanish wasted time by doing so.  Most of the candidates went overtime with platitudes long after they made their point - if they ever got to it.  The guy who said "I'm unique because I'm raising a black child" while standing next to the only black candidate was hilarious. 

Head-scratcher moment: Who bankrolls the DNC? Most of the candidates made it clear that if you're incorporated and too large to qualify as a "small business" then you're the bad guy.  One of them commented that corporations have gotten too big and need to broken up and "the free market" should take over. Didn't the free market determine one should buy out the other in the first place?

That was Savannah Guthrie.

And the centrist Medicare hospital out of business comment was Delaney.  He's apparently in the "centrist lane" with Biden.

The "black child" guy was Deblasio.  There are AFAIK two African American candidates:  Cory Booker and Kamala Harris.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on June 27, 2019, 05:26:36 AM
Several of them are very week on immigration and appear to want to move to open borders or give away free stuff.  It seemed like it was more about who was the least worst candidate.

The WORST candidates were: Cory Booker, JuliŠn Castro, Beto OíRourke, Jay Inslee, Bill de Blasio, Elizabeth Warren

The BEST of the group were: Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard,  John Delaney

I was surprised Delaney actually understands Medicare drastically underpays hospitals and mentioned it during the debate.  As someone who has spent many years working with healthcare organizations, I can tell you this is very true.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on June 27, 2019, 06:02:58 AM
My take:

Winners:

I thought Warren was strong. She does seem very sincere, and I thought it was pretty damn bold (whether or not you agree with her) to take the clear "do away with private health insurance" position. She raised her hand quickly and proudly. Only Mayor de Blasio joined her in doing that, so yes it made her stand out. Castro should see an uptick in his numbers. He was very prepared for this and his adios line was my favorite of the night. To me, Booker probably the best pure speaker of the group. I think he'll get a bump. I do wonder what kind of neighborhood he lives in!

Losers:

I thought Beto was horrible. So robotic and he didn't seem to have the same depth of knowledge as did others. I thought he was supposed to have charisma and energy?? And Klobuchar...geez she is bland, with what I view as stale attempts at "zingers" about foam and beer and her hunter uncle. I don't see how either of them is a factor going forward.


Thoughts about timing: To me, it makes a candidate appear weaker, not stronger, when they exceed their time and force the moderators to call them out, especially on things like canned 45-second closings. Each candidate should have had a closing statement in the bag that went exactly 40 seconds, and not a second more. You need to end on a high note, where everyone can hear your last sentence. That is just basic public speaking.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: sherr on June 27, 2019, 06:45:38 AM
I was surprised Delaney actually understands Medicare drastically underpays hospitals and mentioned it during the debate.  As someone who has spent many years working with healthcare organizations, I can tell you this is very true.

I know this is a common talking point, but as an industry insider maybe you can answer the question I've always had: if hospitals are actually losing money on Medicare then why do hospitals accept Medicare? It seems obvious that if the total compensation was negative (instead of just "less than the hospital wants") that they wouldn't.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on June 27, 2019, 07:23:47 AM
I don't vote in this primary, so I didn't watch, but I do want to respond to the single-issue matter:

I agree that single-issue Democratic candidates are weaker than the others. But Trump was basically a single-issue candidate for much of the GOP primary during 2016 (I know it requires some hand-waiving to group immigration and foreign trade together into one issue, but it's probably best thought of as anti-globalism). I think it's harder to win a democratic primary on one issue because there are such a collection of different interest groups involved.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Travis on June 27, 2019, 08:29:51 AM

Thoughts about timing: To me, it makes a candidate appear weaker, not stronger, when they exceed their time and force the moderators to call them out, especially on things like canned 45-second closings. Each candidate should have had a closing statement in the bag that went exactly 40 seconds, and not a second more. You need to end on a high note, where everyone can hear your last sentence. That is just basic public speaking.

The number of times the speakers spent half their allotted time giving their resume or an appeal to authority with only 10 seconds left to answer the question (or not answer at all in many cases)...

One of my favorite statements from Guthrie: "So you don't have a plan?"

I don't think I've ever seen the debate moderator take on the candidate.  They usually throw softballs and just sit back.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Blueberries on June 27, 2019, 09:43:36 AM
I wasn't impressed with Beto.  I didn't think he was all that prepared.  Castro was prepared, though, and while I don't want him as President, I think he could further his political career in years to come.  I can't help myself, but I like Klobuchar.  I appreciate her more moderate approach; she's practical and I like her economic focus.  I was impressed by Booker as well, which I didn't expect.  I don't know why, but I don't love Warren.  I want to.  I'll see if my position changes as I see her in future debates.

I'm interested to see how Harris does as I quite like her.

I predict frustration on my part as the candidates get 60 seconds for answers and 30 seconds for followup responses.  I understand that's a necessary evil with the math of a 2 hour debate among 10 candidates, but still, I'd like more time per candidate.  I guess that will happen soon enough as the field is winnowed.

I kind of wish Senator Warren could have been in the second debate since all of the other current front runners are on night two. I would rather see the front runners debate each other directly.

Does any candidate drop out after the first debate, or does that happen only after the first primary/caucus?

I wish they did this as well.  They probably wanted to be perceived as "fair", but politics aren't fair, so let's be practical.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: bacchi on June 27, 2019, 10:03:08 AM
I was surprised Delaney actually understands Medicare drastically underpays hospitals and mentioned it during the debate.  As someone who has spent many years working with healthcare organizations, I can tell you this is very true.

I know this is a common talking point, but as an industry insider maybe you can answer the question I've always had: if hospitals are actually losing money on Medicare then why do hospitals accept Medicare? It seems obvious that if the total compensation was negative (instead of just "less than the hospital wants") that they wouldn't.

Hospitals have fixed costs. Medicare patients help with the fixed costs when the hospital is not treating the high-dollar patients.

So, while they may not make much money on Medicare, it's still important to the bottom line for the hospital to accept it.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 27, 2019, 01:39:28 PM
I liked Amy Klobuchar. She was honest and practical about solving problems.  She's right that we aren't going to abolish private health insurance in 4 years.
Also, she's capable of thinking fast on her feet, and was able to reply back about being an advocate of women's reproductive freedom after Inslee said he was the only politician to enact law to protect those freedoms.

I thought Cory Booker was a strong speaker, though a bit rehearsed.

I like Elizabeth Warren's ideas but not sure how realistic some of her plans are.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on June 27, 2019, 02:26:22 PM
I liked Amy Klobuchar. She was honest and practical about solving problems.  She's right that we aren't going to abolish private health insurance in 4 years.
Also, she's capable of thinking fast on her feet, and was able to reply back about being an advocate of women's reproductive freedom after Inslee said he was the only politician to enact law to protect those freedoms.

I thought Cory Booker was a strong speaker, though a bit rehearsed.

I like Elizabeth Warren's ideas but not sure how realistic some of her plans are.

When you doubt the "realism," I suppose you're saying that you think the GOP would stop it, as opposed to saying we couldn't pay for it?

I did a little research and it looks like it would cost $1.5 trillion to wipe out all current student debt (not that Warren actually goes that far, as she puts caps/income limits on her plan, so it would cost less than $1.5 trillion)

And then I look at the Trump tax cuts from 2018 and the cost of them: $1.9 trillion dollars.

And then I see who benefited from said tax cuts: it disproportionately helped the rich (even per Forbes, which is not exactly a liberal rag, a poor person might benefit $1000 while a rich person might benefit $50000) https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2019/04/09/five-good-reasons-it-doesnt-feel-like-the-trump-tax-cut-benefited-you/#53ec2e5b13e0

So basically, if we had the desire to do so, we could have wiped out most/all student debt instead of giving the richest Americans a tax cut. Slashing student loan debt is "realistic" from a math perspective, but surely not from a political perspective, if McConnell stays in charge.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Travis on June 27, 2019, 04:25:44 PM

So basically, if we had the desire to do so, we could have wiped out most/all student debt instead of giving the richest Americans a tax cut. Slashing student loan debt is "realistic" from a math perspective, but surely not from a political perspective, if McConnell stays in charge.

The part of this "wipe out student loans" thing that I haven't seen is what happens next?  If we passed a new tax and paid off every student loan in America tomorrow, what happens the next year when another 100 million dollars in student loans are taken out?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: BlueMR2 on June 27, 2019, 04:37:52 PM
My biggest issue with the student loan proposals is the same issue I had with ACA.  It's just a band-aid.  Does nothing to resolve the root cause.  It just makes people have this emotional feeling that things are better while kicking the can down the road and further burdening future generations.  I'm really disgusted with the entire lineup right now.  There doesn't seem to be anyone with a clue that's running, and once again the party will most likely just shove somebody down our throats with no regard for what the people really want OR need.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: big_owl on June 27, 2019, 05:54:08 PM
My biggest issue with the student loan proposals is the same issue I had with ACA.  It's just a band-aid.  Does nothing to resolve the root cause.  It just makes people have this emotional feeling that things are better while kicking the can down the road and further burdening future generations.  I'm really disgusted with the entire lineup right now.  There doesn't seem to be anyone with a clue that's running, and once again the party will most likely just shove somebody down our throats with no regard for what the people really want OR need.

The pay off student loans thing is basically the same as trump and his promises to build the wall. Only the naieve think either of those will actually happen, but they do bring out the vote.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on June 27, 2019, 06:27:29 PM

I really don't care for all the promises of giving away "free stuff".

I oppose UBI, baby bonds, reparations, free college, wiped out college debt, mandated paid family leave, and paid child care.

I support the ACA, more affordable healthcare (including for seniors paying for expensive Medicare parts/supplements), stabilizing SS without cuts to seniors' benefits, increasing the SS tax thresholds to what they would be if they had been indexed to inflation since 1983.  Affordable healthcare doesn't mean healthcare providers should be paid so little that they go out of business, as so many already have.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: pecunia on June 27, 2019, 06:29:44 PM

- SNIP -

The pay off student loans thing is basically the same as trump and his promises to build the wall. Only the naieve think either of those will actually happen, but they do bring out the vote.

How will the big changes occur if we can't expect the people's wishes to be carried out by the elected officials?  There has to be one earnest one in the bunch.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Travis on June 27, 2019, 07:39:09 PM
Dear Moderators:

You want to be tough on keeping to your time schedule? Install kill switches on candidate microphones. 


Edit: you suck. The author with no platform beat you.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 27, 2019, 07:51:15 PM
I agree with Warrens' wealth tax idea, which could pay off student loans.
Some of these colleges are kind of administrative heavy, and I worry about wasteful spending.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 27, 2019, 08:09:23 PM
Whew!  Kamala Harris just ripped into Biden
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Travis on June 27, 2019, 08:19:13 PM
Whew!  Kamala Harris just ripped into Biden

He's been on the defensive all night, Sanders can't get passed "Medicare uber alles," and Gillibrand won't shut up or stop interrupting everybody.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on June 27, 2019, 09:14:45 PM
My thoughts, again watching the vast majority of the debate and without reading any news reactions:

1.  Williamson may be the first to drop out.  Don't see her or Swalwell as legitimate options at all.

2.  More one trick ponies tonight IMHO, including Yang with his $1000 per month plan, Gillebrand with eliminating corruption, and "pass the torch" Swalwell.

3.  Funniest moment for me was Sanders claiming a mischaracterization and Maddow responding with "It's a quote."

4.  Didn't like Gillebrand interrupting so much early on, but I understand that the format of the debate puts pressure on candidates like her.

5.  Sanders seems like a repeat of 2016 Sanders.  Yay for consistency but I really think his personal time has passed even if his ideas get adopted.

6.  Biden did a pretty respectable job of defending his front runner position I thought.  I thought he handled the Harris direct attack as well as other criticisms pretty well.  I agree with the poster below who said he took credit for more in the Obama administration than he was likely responsible for, but many people do that when looking for a job so I personally fault him only somewhat for doing that.

7.  Buttigeig continues to be thoughtful and articulate and composed.  I appreciated his candor in his answers about the police shooting and his matter of fact defense against Swalwell's attack on that issue.

8.  Harris seems like she should be a preacher rather than a President.  This is probably a stylistic complaint, but it bothers me.

9.  I agree with the kill switches on microphones for the moderators.  I'd also support "you didn't answer the question, please answer the question" improvements somehow, although that might be a pipe dream.  Finally, I'd support them using kill switches whenever they talk over each other, interrupt, or commandeer the conversation.

10.  Maddow and Todd impressed me less than Guthrie, Holt, and the Telemundo guy.  They didn't seem organized when they attempted to throw it to Lester Holt too early, and sometimes fumbled their questions a little bit.  But it's mostly about the candidates.

11.  I was surprised to hear Mitch McConnell's name mentioned so much last night and tonight.  I would have expected more generic comments about taking back the Senate rather than his specific name.  Maybe it helps engender support.

12.  I feel badly for the candidates I forgot - they apparently didn't make enough of an impression on me.  I guess that includes Bennet and Hickenlooper.

13.  Surprised that there were several to many open seats in the audience during a portion of the debate.  It was a small venue and I would have thought that the place would be packed.  I don't draw any conclusions from this observation other than it was unexpected.

I like the DNC's plan to raise the bar to qualify for the next debate.  I think it's got to be hard to manage to serve 20+ candidates at all, let alone in a reasonably fair way.  I find it fascinating that I am already seeing comments out there about the DNC choosing a candidate for the Democrats.  I understand the history and I certainly think the media personalities might advocate for candidates they personally like, but it seems too early to assert that this is going to happen.  I guess it's a ghost of 2016 that they'll have to deal with somehow.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Travis on June 27, 2019, 09:19:20 PM
My $.02 on tonight:

Biden - couldn't directly answer a question, but took credit for everything - so much so that half the issues they discussed tonight shouldn't still be problems. 

Sanders - Medicare, Medicare, Medicare. And couldn't give more than the same vague shouts he's been giving for years.

Gillibrand - rode Biden's coat tails half the night - and interrupted everybody the other half.

Williamson - how did this person even get on the stage?

Yang - same question.  Even though he only has the one issue, poor guy barely got a chance to say it.

Bennet - couldn't find anything bad to say about him, couldn't find anything that stood out either

Harris - big winner tonight. Credibility for opposing Obama on a few issues and being an important player from CA

Buttigieg - gave honest and specific answers. I liked his "I blew it" response to the police issue. Tied for winner with Harris IMO.

Hickenlooper - some good answers, but needs to speak faster

Swalwell - idiot. Buttigieg said repeatedly there's an investigation and Swalwell's retort was "fire the guy."

Two word response: "Here is my thesis statement"
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Travis on June 27, 2019, 09:26:29 PM

11.  I was surprised to hear Mitch McConnell's name mentioned so much last night and tonight.  I would have expected more generic comments about taking back the Senate rather than his specific name.  Maybe it helps engender support.

Being President is pointless if you don't also have the Senate on your side. The Senate Majority Leader gets to decide what gets debated and voted on.  McConnell stated repeatedly during Obama's administration that his main goal was to obstruct him.  If the guy running the Senate has declared "I'm just here to screw with you," dealing with him becomes a big part of the game plan.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Travis on June 27, 2019, 09:44:16 PM
Healthcare and tuition are two of the biggest legs of the DNC platform, but I never hear anybody actually discuss the cause or second order effects (except for Delaney).  They talk big about the ACA, but ignore that it is still the law but does nothing to address those big bad evil insurance companies nor discuss why people still have high deductibles or no insurance at all.  They also never bring up why healthcare is so expensive - just that it is.  Sanders is the only one to address it, except he got so caught up in his ranting tonight he blamed prescription drugs costs on the insurance companies as well.  They can't have it both ways.  They're still using the same talking points they used pre-ACA.  Many of them want free college tuition, but don't bring up why so many folks get loans in the first place - college is fucking expensive.  Simply transferring who pays for it won't make it any less expensive for the nation.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on June 27, 2019, 09:53:54 PM
Too much pandering to illegal aliens again - free healthcare, open borders, asylum, coddling, not deporting illegals, etc.

I don't care for Harris at all.  Yang's selective non-universal income dividend is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, and Harris has a $500/mo similar idea she threw out there during the debate.  Enough of throwing this free stuff out there to try to win votes.  And I don't want to see free pre-K, UBI, baby bonds, reparations, free college, wiped out college debt, mandated paid family leave, and free child care.

The two older guys held up well.  Bernie still has the energy, and Biden looks like he's ready to take over right now.  I would expect them to hold their positions easily after these debates.

Biden looks the strongest from this group and has the best chance of beating Trump.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on June 28, 2019, 06:54:39 AM
Based on debate only (trying to be objective)

1) Harris murdered Biden and was trending big on Google in like 35 states. She'll see a bump. Damn she will be formidable in future debates; other candidates are on notice. The passion and energy she brought was unmatched by anyone else on the stage.

2) Buttigieg was the most articulate and analytical, staying calm while still getting some good one-liners and digs in. He survived the police shooting issue, and I'd anticipate him regaining some momentum. He was also the top trending candidate in like a dozen states, including Iowa. I noticed how other candidates did not generally interrupt him. Loved the eye daggers at Swalswell.

3) Maybe...Bernie? His closing was strong, because it makes sense. Dems have had control of Congress and/or the White House for what, at least 50% of the time in the last 45 or so years? Yet the candidates kept talking about how we've had the same problem (income stagnation) for 40-50 years. So...doesn't this imply that half-measures haven't solved anything?

4)-9) Doesn't really matter, I don't think. I thought Biden was near the bottom. He looked old, low-energy, he stumbled over answers, and was not ready for the bashing from Harris.

10) Williamson will automatically make the July debate right? I'm sure Twitter will be ready with drinking games next time.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on June 28, 2019, 07:11:59 AM
I told my husband that I never had a problem with Bidenís age... until last night. He is losing his edge.

And my husband reminded me it would be a year and a half fro now before he even took office if he was elected.

Biden moved down a lot on my list after last night.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: sherr on June 28, 2019, 07:27:13 AM
(even per Forbes, which is not exactly a liberal rag) https://www.forbes.com/sites/

FYI @Nick_Miller, forbes.com/sites is not "Forbes", it's a trash blog platform that is styled intentionally deceptively to make it look like Forbes has more content than they do and to lend false credibility to their bloggers. Content on /sites is not edited, endorsed, reviewed, or fact-checked in any way, and it says so in the fine print at the bottom. I point this out not because I disagree with your comment, but because it drives me up the wall that people cite forbes.com/sites as if it has an ounce of credibility. It doesn't, it's trash, and no one should read it ever.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on June 28, 2019, 08:04:28 AM
(even per Forbes, which is not exactly a liberal rag) https://www.forbes.com/sites/

FYI @Nick_Miller, forbes.com/sites is not "Forbes", it's a trash blog platform that is styled intentionally deceptively to make it look like Forbes has more content than they do and to lend false credibility to their bloggers. Content on /sites is not edited, endorsed, reviewed, or fact-checked in any way, and it says so in the fine print at the bottom. I point this out not because I disagree with your comment, but because it drives me up the wall that people cite forbes.com/sites as if it has an ounce of credibility. It doesn't, it's trash, and no one should read it ever.

Ah, I did not know any of that. I assumed it was tied tightly to the magazine. Alas, I was apparently duped!

But yeah I could have gotten the same facts from another site; I don't think it changes anything I said.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: ketchup on June 28, 2019, 10:28:30 AM
Yang - same question.  Even though he only has the one issue, poor guy barely got a chance to say it.
He has over 100 issues. https://www.yang2020.com/policies/

MSNBC basically fucked him though.  His mic was off pretty much the entire time.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/andrew-yang-blames-debate-performance-on-his-mic-being-off/2019/06/28/3529b68e-99a0-11e9-916d-9c61607d8190_story.html?utm_term=.18a625f9722e

Bernie was pretty much exactly as expected, same as 2016.  Kamala Harris sure found plenty of ways to squeeze one sentence into three paragraphs.  I liked Pete.

Biden came off as old.  He has a year on Bernie but he sure seemed well past his prime.  I didn't fully realize that until last night.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Travis on June 28, 2019, 10:42:54 AM
Yang - same question.  Even though he only has the one issue, poor guy barely got a chance to say it.
He has over 100 issues. https://www.yang2020.com/policies/


No doubt in writing he's got some things to say, but he was allowed to speak twice. He led off with his universal income pitch and ended with it.  He could have said whatever he wanted in closing, but chose to stick with that one issue.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on June 28, 2019, 10:46:27 AM
Yang - same question.  Even though he only has the one issue, poor guy barely got a chance to say it.
He has over 100 issues. https://www.yang2020.com/policies/


No doubt in writing he's got some things to say, but he was allowed to speak twice. He led off with his universal income pitch and ended with it.  He could have said whatever he wanted in closing, but chose to stick with that one issue.

I do think Yang was mistreated. I would have MUCH rather heard a bit more from him as compared to Williamson and/or Bennet. But Yang will likely qualify for debates in August and Sept (after the requirements go up) so he should get more chances with the field narrows.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 28, 2019, 12:22:28 PM
Yang had a cough which might have been why his mic might have been turned off at times.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Blueberries on June 28, 2019, 02:06:18 PM
I could see Buttigieg as President in another handful of years.  Harris is a favorite for so many reasons, though I must admit, I don't know if the country is ready for her (I'm open to being wrong!). I'd like her as VP this go around.  But, I didn't like the Biden shaming.  The party needs to show a more united front because it's going to be a tough race. 

My other issue is I think some of the candidates are too progressive for the political climate.  I believe we have Trump because we had Obama.  I know the pendulum will swing the other way, as it has done throughout history, but I don't think the best solution is to go from Trump to a far left candidate. 

Several people need to drop out.  I'd like to see this group do a debate together:  Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren.  From them, I'd like to see a Biden/Harris run.  I'm not sold on Biden, I just think people need another old white man before we see the next major shift forward.

I agree with Warrens' wealth tax idea, which could pay off student loans.
Some of these colleges are kind of administrative heavy, and I worry about wasteful spending.

I didn't finish my BS that long ago and it was hard work and took me longer than it should have, but why should all student loan debt be eliminated? 

I'm in favor of refinancing, loan forgiveness programs for teachers, social workers, etc., increasing grants, and free community college, but beyond that?  No. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on June 28, 2019, 02:10:25 PM
I could see Buttigieg as President in another handful of years.  Harris is a favorite for so many reasons, though I must admit, I don't know if the country is ready for her (I'm open to being wrong!). I'd like her as VP this go around.  But, I didn't like the Biden shaming.  The party needs to show a more united front because it's going to be a tough race. 

My other issue is I think some of the candidates are too progressive for the political climate.  I believe we have Trump because we had Obama.  I know the pendulum will swing the other way, as it has done throughout history, but I don't think the best solution is to go from Trump to a far left candidate. 

Several people need to drop out.  I'd like to see this group do a debate together:  Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren.  From them, I'd like to see a Biden/Harris run.  I'm not sold on Biden, I just think people need another old white man before we see the next major shift forward.

I agree with Warrens' wealth tax idea, which could pay off student loans.
Some of these colleges are kind of administrative heavy, and I worry about wasteful spending.

I didn't finish my BS that long ago and it was hard work and took me longer than it should have, but why should all student loan debt be eliminated? 

I'm in favor of refinancing, loan forgiveness programs for teachers, social workers, etc., increasing grants, and free community college, but beyond that?  No.

How do you feel about student loans being eligible to be wiped out in the case of bankruptcy proceedings?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: ketchup on June 28, 2019, 02:14:29 PM
I could see Buttigieg as President in another handful of years.  Harris is a favorite for so many reasons, though I must admit, I don't know if the country is ready for her (I'm open to being wrong!). I'd like her as VP this go around.  But, I didn't like the Biden shaming.  The party needs to show a more united front because it's going to be a tough race. 

My other issue is I think some of the candidates are too progressive for the political climate.  I believe we have Trump because we had Obama.  I know the pendulum will swing the other way, as it has done throughout history, but I don't think the best solution is to go from Trump to a far left candidate. 

Several people need to drop out.  I'd like to see this group do a debate together:  Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren.  From them, I'd like to see a Biden/Harris run.  I'm not sold on Biden, I just think people need another old white man before we see the next major shift forward.

I agree with Warrens' wealth tax idea, which could pay off student loans.
Some of these colleges are kind of administrative heavy, and I worry about wasteful spending.

I didn't finish my BS that long ago and it was hard work and took me longer than it should have, but why should all student loan debt be eliminated? 

I'm in favor of refinancing, loan forgiveness programs for teachers, social workers, etc., increasing grants, and free community college, but beyond that?  No.

How do you feel about student loans being eligible to be wiped out in the case of bankruptcy proceedings?
I go back and forth on this.  What's to stop every college grad from declaring bankruptcy at 22?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on June 28, 2019, 02:16:45 PM
I could see Buttigieg as President in another handful of years.  Harris is a favorite for so many reasons, though I must admit, I don't know if the country is ready for her (I'm open to being wrong!). I'd like her as VP this go around.  But, I didn't like the Biden shaming.  The party needs to show a more united front because it's going to be a tough race. 

My other issue is I think some of the candidates are too progressive for the political climate.  I believe we have Trump because we had Obama.  I know the pendulum will swing the other way, as it has done throughout history, but I don't think the best solution is to go from Trump to a far left candidate. 

Several people need to drop out.  I'd like to see this group do a debate together:  Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren.  From them, I'd like to see a Biden/Harris run.  I'm not sold on Biden, I just think people need another old white man before we see the next major shift forward.

I agree with Warrens' wealth tax idea, which could pay off student loans.
Some of these colleges are kind of administrative heavy, and I worry about wasteful spending.

I didn't finish my BS that long ago and it was hard work and took me longer than it should have, but why should all student loan debt be eliminated? 

I'm in favor of refinancing, loan forgiveness programs for teachers, social workers, etc., increasing grants, and free community college, but beyond that?  No.

How do you feel about student loans being eligible to be wiped out in the case of bankruptcy proceedings?
I go back and forth on this.  What's to stop every college grad from declaring bankruptcy at 22?

What's to stop anyone from declaring bankruptcy?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: ketchup on June 28, 2019, 02:20:15 PM
I could see Buttigieg as President in another handful of years.  Harris is a favorite for so many reasons, though I must admit, I don't know if the country is ready for her (I'm open to being wrong!). I'd like her as VP this go around.  But, I didn't like the Biden shaming.  The party needs to show a more united front because it's going to be a tough race. 

My other issue is I think some of the candidates are too progressive for the political climate.  I believe we have Trump because we had Obama.  I know the pendulum will swing the other way, as it has done throughout history, but I don't think the best solution is to go from Trump to a far left candidate. 

Several people need to drop out.  I'd like to see this group do a debate together:  Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren.  From them, I'd like to see a Biden/Harris run.  I'm not sold on Biden, I just think people need another old white man before we see the next major shift forward.

I agree with Warrens' wealth tax idea, which could pay off student loans.
Some of these colleges are kind of administrative heavy, and I worry about wasteful spending.

I didn't finish my BS that long ago and it was hard work and took me longer than it should have, but why should all student loan debt be eliminated? 

I'm in favor of refinancing, loan forgiveness programs for teachers, social workers, etc., increasing grants, and free community college, but beyond that?  No.

How do you feel about student loans being eligible to be wiped out in the case of bankruptcy proceedings?
I go back and forth on this.  What's to stop every college grad from declaring bankruptcy at 22?

What's to stop anyone from declaring bankruptcy?
Fair enough.  It just seems like the obvious "out" if that were to become the way it worked.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Blueberries on June 28, 2019, 03:32:05 PM
I could see Buttigieg as President in another handful of years.  Harris is a favorite for so many reasons, though I must admit, I don't know if the country is ready for her (I'm open to being wrong!). I'd like her as VP this go around.  But, I didn't like the Biden shaming.  The party needs to show a more united front because it's going to be a tough race. 

My other issue is I think some of the candidates are too progressive for the political climate.  I believe we have Trump because we had Obama.  I know the pendulum will swing the other way, as it has done throughout history, but I don't think the best solution is to go from Trump to a far left candidate. 

Several people need to drop out.  I'd like to see this group do a debate together:  Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren.  From them, I'd like to see a Biden/Harris run.  I'm not sold on Biden, I just think people need another old white man before we see the next major shift forward.

I agree with Warrens' wealth tax idea, which could pay off student loans.
Some of these colleges are kind of administrative heavy, and I worry about wasteful spending.

I didn't finish my BS that long ago and it was hard work and took me longer than it should have, but why should all student loan debt be eliminated? 

I'm in favor of refinancing, loan forgiveness programs for teachers, social workers, etc., increasing grants, and free community college, but beyond that?  No.

How do you feel about student loans being eligible to be wiped out in the case of bankruptcy proceedings?

Hmm, if most other debts are wiped, depending on the bankruptcy type, why can't you (general) pay your student loans?  I think it's a slippery slope.  Generally, no, I'm not in favor of it.  I do believe a lot of blame rests on universities increasing costs unnaturally, but I also think a lot of the blame rests on people for not doing their research.  There are ways to get a four year degree cheaper; you have to be creative, work hard, and be flexible.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: SaucyAussie on June 28, 2019, 03:54:02 PM
I have been a big Biden fan for a long time but watching Harris take him apart was an eye opener for me.  I can only imagine what Trump would do to him.

So it comes down to a gay man, a black woman, or a "socialist".  I like them all, but is America ready?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Samuel on June 28, 2019, 04:11:47 PM
I was dismayed to see both Warren and Harris (who I like) joining Bernie to say they would support the elimination of private insurance as part of a "Medicare for all" plan. Harris apparently walked it back today saying she misunderstood the question, which doesn't sound quite right since after the first debate she must have known they'd ask that question.

That's exactly the kind of position that might help get you the nomination only to lose you the general election. It's not at all a popular idea outside of the bluest states.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 28, 2019, 04:15:05 PM
I have been a big Biden fan for a long time but watching Harris take him apart was an eye opener for me.  I can only imagine what Trump would do to him.

So it comes down to a gay man, a black woman, or a "socialist".  I like them all, but is America ready?

I thought Buttigieg is the best communicator of them all. While I generally like Harris she doesn't articulate a positive vision for me to get motivated by.

I also think the 2 candidates from Colorado are both good.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on June 28, 2019, 04:16:49 PM
I was dismayed to see both Warren and Harris (who I like) joining Bernie to say they would support the elimination of private insurance as part of a "Medicare for all" plan. Harris apparently walked it back today saying she misunderstood the question, which doesn't sound quite right since after the first debate she must have known they'd ask that question.

That's exactly the kind of position that might help get you the nomination only to lose you the general election. It's not at all a popular idea outside of the bluest states.

Yes I agree with you on this. We're going to need to just add a public option to the ACA as the first step.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIPurpose on June 28, 2019, 04:18:32 PM
I have been a big Biden fan for a long time but watching Harris take him apart was an eye opener for me.  I can only imagine what Trump would do to him.

So it comes down to a gay man, a black woman, or a "socialist".  I like them all, but is America ready?

I thought Buttigieg is the best communicator of them all. While I generally like Harris she doesn't articulate a positive vision for me to get motivated by.

I also think the 2 candidates from Colorado are both good.

Harris showed her prosecutor background. She can take someone down and make them look guilty, which makes her perfect for a debate against Trump. The positive message would have to come more from Elizabeth Warren.

A Harris/Warren ticket would be pretty interesting blend actually.

The two from CO are milquetoast. I think they would be Bob Doles in a general election.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on June 28, 2019, 07:21:19 PM
I was dismayed to see both Warren and Harris (who I like) joining Bernie to say they would support the elimination of private insurance as part of a "Medicare for all" plan. Harris apparently walked it back today saying she misunderstood the question, which doesn't sound quite right since after the first debate she must have known they'd ask that question.

That's exactly the kind of position that might help get you the nomination only to lose you the general election. It's not at all a popular idea outside of the bluest states.

Color me dubious of her walk back also.

I'm fairly certain that she explicitly stated wanting to eliminate private insurance in her very first speech where she announced her candidacy a few months ago.  Maybe she has changed her position since then?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on June 28, 2019, 07:46:21 PM
Some people are excited about Harris for her pre-planned attacked on Joe Biden, pulling the all too predictable the race card.  Sorry, that did nothing for me.  And that $500/mo ($6000/year) she's talking about giving to everyone, well, it's only HALF that amount to a single person, and ONLY if that person makes under $50,000/yr, yet there's a minimum threshold as well, and the poorest people and families, such as those not working or only on social security, will get NOTHING under her plan.  You actually have to have thousands of dollars of earnings from a job to qualify.  Poor and not working?  You get NOTHING!  Living on just a meager social security benefit?  You get NOTHING!

As bad as her plan is, it's not as bad as one-issue Yang's dividend / UBI.  Yang's dividend / UBI is a non-universal payment that is redistribution of income up from the poor and elderly.  If you received $1400/mo SS check that you worked your entire career to earn, you do NOT get Yang's $1000 dividend, but you WILL pay the higher costs/taxes for everything to fund other people's UBI.  So the net effect, is your financial hardships of scraping by on SS will be even worse thanks to Yang's UBI raising your expenses while you get NOTHING!  Same with poor people receiving about a $1000/mo in benefits from social welfare programs.  Sorry, you don't get the $1000/mo UBI either - it would be break-even with your current benefits you would have to give up, but you'll pay more in costs/taxes to fund other people's UBI.  So if it hurts all these poor people mentioned so far, who will UBI benefit?  Some unemployed receiving no or very little social welfare and younger low income people will benefit, but also those wealthy people bringing in generous pensions or earning high incomes will make out very well because they'll get 100% of their sweet pensions and income, PLUS the UBI on top of it, even if they have many millions of $$$ saved.  It's pure gravy for them.  So it's really advantageous to the wealthier people at the expense of some of the poorest who get nothing except higher costs.

It's similar in some ways to Harris' plan, but at least her plan has a cut-off for high income earners.  Those on SS are still shafted with her plan, but it's worse in that the non-retired non-working poor get nothing at all with Harris' plan where they would with Yang's UBI.  At the end of the day, neither plan is acceptable and both are way too expensive.  Candidates offering more and more free stuff is not the answer, especially when done so unfairly in such a way that some of the most vulnerable American citizens are left out or actually hurt by the plan.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: pecunia on June 28, 2019, 08:04:21 PM

- SNIP -

  Candidates offering more and more free stuff is not the answer, especially when done so unfairly to some of the most vulnerable American citizens.

If those plans ever came to a vote, it would be a hard sell.  Look how much trouble they are having selling changes in the country's medical system which will actually save the country a large amount of money over all.

All of the great giveaways will at most be realized in part as they must be compromised to pass.

On the other hand, the big tax giveaway that passed last year didn't seem to have had a lot of compromise.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: nick663 on June 28, 2019, 08:17:37 PM
I was dismayed to see both Warren and Harris (who I like) joining Bernie to say they would support the elimination of private insurance as part of a "Medicare for all" plan. Harris apparently walked it back today saying she misunderstood the question, which doesn't sound quite right since after the first debate she must have known they'd ask that question.

That's exactly the kind of position that might help get you the nomination only to lose you the general election. It's not at all a popular idea outside of the bluest states.

She also stated her support for getting rid of private insurance during a CNN townhall earlier this year.  Her campaign walked that back soon after:  https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/kamala-harris-medicare-for-all-eliminate-private-insurers-backlash/index.html
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on June 28, 2019, 08:34:08 PM

- SNIP -

  Candidates offering more and more free stuff is not the answer, especially when done so unfairly to some of the most vulnerable American citizens.

If those plans ever came to a vote, it would be a hard sell.  Look how much trouble they are having selling changes in the country's medical system which will actually save the country a large amount of money over all.

All of the great giveaways will at most be realized in part as they must be compromised to pass.

On the other hand, the big tax giveaway that passed last year didn't seem to have had a lot of compromise.

Yes, Yang has virtually no chance of being elected, and Harris', if she were to actually become president, her plan probably woudn't go anywhere or would be very watered down to have a chance.  But they aren't even being honest with what their plan really is when they say that everyone will get it.  It seems like most people aren't seeing that or pointing it out and are just buying into the talking point that "everyone will get free $$$".  I haven't even spent as much time thinking about these things as I hope these candidates would have, but I could still come up with a much better and fairer idea than either of these plans.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on June 29, 2019, 04:25:19 AM
Some people are excited about Harris for her pre-planned attacked on Joe Biden, pulling the all too predictable the race card.  Sorry, that did nothing for me.  And that $500/mo ($6000/year) she's talking about giving to everyone, well, it's only HALF that amount to a single person, and ONLY if that person makes under $50,000/yr, yet there's a minimum threshold as well, and the poorest people and families, such as those not working or only on social security, will get NOTHING under her plan.  You actually have to have thousands of dollars of earnings from a job to qualify.  Poor and not working?  You get NOTHING!  Living on just a meager social security benefit?  You get NOTHING!

As bad as her plan is, it's not as bad as one-issue Yang's dividend / UBI.  Yang's dividend / UBI is a non-universal payment that is redistribution of income up from the poor and elderly.  If you received $1400/mo SS check that you worked your entire career to earn, you do NOT get Yang's $1000 dividend, but you WILL pay the higher costs/taxes for everything to fund other people's UBI.  So the net effect, is your financial hardships of scraping by on SS will be even worse thanks to Yang's UBI raising your expenses while you get NOTHING!  Same with poor people receiving about a $1000/mo in benefits from social welfare programs.  Sorry, you don't get the $1000/mo UBI either - it would be break-even with your current benefits you would have to give up, but you'll pay more in costs/taxes to fund other people's UBI.  So if it hurts all these poor people mentioned so far, who will UBI benefit?  Some unemployed receiving no or very little social welfare and younger low income people will benefit, but also those wealthy people bringing in generous pensions or earning high incomes will make out very well because they'll get 100% of their sweet pensions and income, PLUS the UBI on top of it, even if they have many millions of $$$ saved.  It's pure gravy for them.  So it's really advantageous to the wealthier people at the expense of some of the poorest who get nothing except higher costs.

It's similar in some ways to Harris' plan, but at least her plan has a cut-off for high income earners.  Those on SS are still shafted with her plan, but it's worse in that the non-retired non-working poor get nothing at all with Harris' plan where they would with Yang's UBI.  At the end of the day, neither plan is acceptable and both are way too expensive.  Candidates offering more and more free stuff is not the answer, especially when done so unfairly in such a way that some of the most vulnerable American citizens are left out or actually hurt by the plan.

I agree. Better than nearly doubling min wage, better than UBI, better than other income-based monetary incentives, is making the ultra-wealthy and big corps pay their part in taxes, and providing social services and benefits accessible to EVERYONE, reducing the costs of tuition and pharm, etc...so that we donít NEED to earn so much just to live a low financially-stressed life.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on June 29, 2019, 04:51:24 PM
OK, my prediction is that the next President will be one of:

Trump
Harris
Warren
Buttigieg

For various reasons, I don't think anyone else is going to make it.

Long way to go, and stuff could happen, of course.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: KBecks on June 29, 2019, 05:32:41 PM
Would Harris bring out the African American vote the same way Obama did?  If she can, it's a huge edge.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: redbirdfan on June 29, 2019, 08:09:35 PM
Quote
Would Harris bring out the African American vote the same way Obama did?  If she can, it's a huge edge.

This is purely anecdotal, but there seems to be a generational divide.  The older members of my family are more conservative and are leaning towards Biden (but would vote for whoever is the eventual D nominee) and the younger members are more prone to apathy and are leaning towards staying home altogether.  The black vote won't really come into play until South Carolina (my apologies to African Americans in Iowa and New Hampshire).  I think it depends on what Biden does between now and then.  If Biden is no longer carrying the aura of electability,  you may see an increase in the black vote for Booker and/or Harris.  Harris will also have an advantage in California.  As for the general election, I'm not convinced that the party can recreate the "Obama coalition" with such a huge swing to the left.  Obama did cause a spike in black voter turnout, but he also won bc he didn't alienate the industrial midwest or purplish southern states (Biden helped).  If Biden falters, I don't think anyone will gain enough votes to prevent this from becoming a long and drawn out process.  If 2016 is any indicator, that might suppress the turnout for those who strongly backed other candidates (i.e. Bernie or bust).

Of course, there's no telling what Trump will do between now and then with twitter tantrums, trade wars and/or actual confrontation with Iran/NK. 

TL; DR: Shrug emoji. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: KBecks on June 30, 2019, 03:34:10 AM
Interesting point.  It would make sense for Boomers to lean towards an older candidate who is like them.  But the creepy Uncle Joe factor seems like it would be a huge turn off to younger voters, particularly younger women. It was interesting that Bernie pulled in the younger voters so much last time. I wonder if he will get that same kind of appeal this time around, but maybe not so much in a crowded field.

For what Trump does, he took down tons of Republicans in 2015.  I would expect very similar slams of Dems while this primary is in progress.  I wonder which candidates he prefers to run against.

Booker is interesting, and he is single, which is unusual.  I think Michelle Obama was a huge help to Barack Obama. The Obamas were a beautiful first family, and first African American first family.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: KBecks on June 30, 2019, 03:55:51 AM
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: SaucyAussie on June 30, 2019, 05:07:19 AM
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.

You pretty much answered your own question.  We all knew Hillary very well and that came with a huge amount of baggage - Whitewater, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, Monica Lewinsky, Vince Foster, emails, the list goes on.  (And I still voted for her.) 

Warren has more of a clean slate.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: KBecks on June 30, 2019, 06:22:55 AM
Good point.  I wonder which candidate in the field would be the hungriest, hardest worker on the campaign? 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: former player on June 30, 2019, 06:35:08 AM
I would have thought the biggest electoral turn off in 2020 would be old het white men on either side - Trump on one side, Biden or Bernie on the other.  But I don't think it will happen: Trump yes, but I don't think either Biden or Bernie have enough to see off the challengers once their names and personalities are better known.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on June 30, 2019, 06:43:50 AM
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.

She has absolutely zero charisma.  She claims to be native American when tests show she's no more native American than the average American.  Too much non-sense.  Demonizes corporate  America.  Wants to give away too much free stuff.

Biden is still looking like the best of the bunch that has any chance.

With the rolling Trump economy, the dems need to hope the economy goes to shit before the election, or it's going to be tough sailing, regardless of what any head to head polls might say.  We know how unreliable they can be when it comes to Trump
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: KBecks on June 30, 2019, 06:59:03 AM
I honestly wonder if there was market manipulation in 2016 before the election (and that's something I may need to prepare for or want to take advantage of if it reoccurs in 2020).  That big dip?  I think there are big shareholders who can dump assets and shake stuff up.

After 9/11 I care a lot about having a President who can handle things internationally.  Not a warmonger, but not a wimp. I'm not sure who will come across as the best choice for international relations. Maybe it is Biden.
This is where the Indiana mayor will fall apart -- there's just not enough experience.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: nick663 on June 30, 2019, 01:40:32 PM
Quote
Would Harris bring out the African American vote the same way Obama did?  If she can, it's a huge edge.

This is purely anecdotal, but there seems to be a generational divide.  The older members of my family are more conservative and are leaning towards Biden (but would vote for whoever is the eventual D nominee) and the younger members are more prone to apathy and are leaning towards staying home altogether.  The black vote won't really come into play until South Carolina (my apologies to African Americans in Iowa and New Hampshire).  I think it depends on what Biden does between now and then.  If Biden is no longer carrying the aura of electability,  you may see an increase in the black vote for Booker and/or Harris.  Harris will also have an advantage in California.  As for the general election, I'm not convinced that the party can recreate the "Obama coalition" with such a huge swing to the left.  Obama did cause a spike in black voter turnout, but he also won bc he didn't alienate the industrial midwest or purplish southern states (Biden helped).  If Biden falters, I don't think anyone will gain enough votes to prevent this from becoming a long and drawn out process.  If 2016 is any indicator, that might suppress the turnout for those who strongly backed other candidates (i.e. Bernie or bust).

Of course, there's no telling what Trump will do between now and then with twitter tantrums, trade wars and/or actual confrontation with Iran/NK. 

TL; DR: Shrug emoji.
How "into" politics are the older people that are supporting Biden?  Can they name 5 other democratic primary candidates?

I feel like Biden is the front runner on name recognition/familiarity and that's it.  Most that recite his name as a good candidate can't name a single policy position he holds nor have they put much thought into their support of him.
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.
Very different platforms.  Warren is closer to Bernie on the left/right scale and Clinton was much more towards to the center.

I feel that actually makes her less likely to win a general election than Clinton but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Psychstache on June 30, 2019, 01:55:22 PM
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.

Why do you assume that the closest comparison is Hillary Clinton instead of one of the other 19 candidates that Warren is facing?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: pecunia on June 30, 2019, 04:44:14 PM
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.

She has absolutely zero charisma.  She claims to be native American when tests show she's no more native American than the average American.  Too much non-sense.  Demonizes corporate  America.  Wants to give away too much free stuff.

Biden is still looking like the best of the bunch that has any chance.

With the rolling Trump economy, the dems need to hope the economy goes to shit before the election, or it's going to be tough sailing, regardless of what any head to head polls might say.  We know how unreliable they can be when it comes to Trump

I guess the average American is then part native American.  I am not.  However, Elizabeth Warren's DNA tests show that she has native American blood. 

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535741/poll-elizabeth-warren-dna-test-2020-democratic-primary (https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535741/poll-elizabeth-warren-dna-test-2020-democratic-primary)

I guess it is like global warming and smoking for the past generation.  Repeat enough disinformation enough times and people do not know the truth.

I like Elizabeth Warren.  It's not personality.  It's not looks.  It's the fact that she fought against credit card companies which take their lb of flesh from those financially vulnerable.  People voted for John Kennedy years ago because he had "charisma."  If I hire someone to do a job for me to fix the country, I do not care if they have "charisma."
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on June 30, 2019, 05:23:55 PM
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.

She has absolutely zero charisma.  She claims to be native American when tests show she's no more native American than the average American.  Too much non-sense.  Demonizes corporate  America.  Wants to give away too much free stuff.

Biden is still looking like the best of the bunch that has any chance.

With the rolling Trump economy, the dems need to hope the economy goes to shit before the election, or it's going to be tough sailing, regardless of what any head to head polls might say.  We know how unreliable they can be when it comes to Trump

I guess the average American is then part native American.

Yes, that was my point.  She has a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American.  That's what makes it a joke.  The indians were insulted that she tried to claim herself to be one as well.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: redbirdfan on June 30, 2019, 06:08:27 PM
Quote
How "into" politics are the older people that are supporting Biden?  Can they name 5 other democratic primary candidates?

I feel like Biden is the front runner on name recognition/familiarity and that's it.  Most that recite his name as a good candidate can't name a single policy position he holds nor have they put much thought into their support of him.

I'll try to explain and add in actual quotes.  They watch either CNN or MSNBC on a regular basis.  They can identify most of the "top tier" candidates but generally regard Biden as the only one who isn't slightly to completely crazy- this tends to take on an element of the younger candidates not understanding what is at stake.  They don't understand why the candidates are running on free everything PRIOR to winning office.  Post debate they hope Biden doesn't shift to the left.  They are staunch Democrats but are not particularly pro-Choice and are pretty religious.  Of the candidates running, Biden is the only one they believe has a shot at taking down Trump.  They are purely transactional in this regard.  They believe the things Bernie, Harris, Booker, Warren, etc. are fighting for are aspirational but naive.  Mayor Pete is the only other candidate they believe "sounded like he had some sense" but he's "a few years away from being ready for prime time."  Their preference for Biden tends to be expressed in terms of understanding the audience of "real American voters."  My family lives almost exclusively in the midwest and south.  They have had heard their (white) Republican neighbors talk about how Biden was the only Democrat they would even consider voting for.

Most important to them is beating Trump.  They don't understand why the Democrats are playing around with free college and free healthcare or abortion or any other issue that will do anything to alienate voters needed to beat Trump.  They fought for Civil Rights and believe just about everything they fought for will be gone (or at least they won't be around long enough to things to recover) if Trump wins another term.  RBG will likely retire in the next term and they regard another Trump SC pick as the death knell for Civil Rights.  Hillary losing resulted in the shift of the SC "because kids who didn't understand what was at stake decided to stay home or vote 3rd Party."  (Note: A lot of these kids are in my family) They believe too much is at stake to vote for candidates less likely to win the general election. I honestly do not believe there is any policy or debate performance that would change their minds.  The overall mindset is THIS IS NOT A DRILL. 

Getting Trump out of office is the only objective.  Biden is who they see as the only shot to do that.  Period.  They believe voting for another candidate in the primary is a luxury they do not have.  "For you kids it may be ok, we were kids once too.  You don't know how much had to fight to get to where we are.  I don't have enough time to gamble." 

Again, it's purely anecdotal, but I doubt the numbers for Biden's black support will decrease...if anything the numbers may go up. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: nick663 on June 30, 2019, 07:54:55 PM
Quote
How "into" politics are the older people that are supporting Biden?  Can they name 5 other democratic primary candidates?

I feel like Biden is the front runner on name recognition/familiarity and that's it.  Most that recite his name as a good candidate can't name a single policy position he holds nor have they put much thought into their support of him.

I'll try to explain and add in actual quotes.  They watch either CNN or MSNBC on a regular basis.  They can identify most of the "top tier" candidates but generally regard Biden as the only one who isn't slightly to completely crazy- this tends to take on an element of the younger candidates not understanding what is at stake.  They don't understand why the candidates are running on free everything PRIOR to winning office.  Post debate they hope Biden doesn't shift to the left.  They are staunch Democrats but are not particularly pro-Choice and are pretty religious.  Of the candidates running, Biden is the only one they believe has a shot at taking down Trump.  They are purely transactional in this regard.  They believe the things Bernie, Harris, Booker, Warren, etc. are fighting for are aspirational but naive.  Mayor Pete is the only other candidate they believe "sounded like he had some sense" but he's "a few years away from being ready for prime time."  Their preference for Biden tends to be expressed in terms of understanding the audience of "real American voters."  My family lives almost exclusively in the midwest and south.  They have had heard their (white) Republican neighbors talk about how Biden was the only Democrat they would even consider voting for.

Most important to them is beating Trump.  They don't understand why the Democrats are playing around with free college and free healthcare or abortion or any other issue that will do anything to alienate voters needed to beat Trump.  They fought for Civil Rights and believe just about everything they fought for will be gone (or at least they won't be around long enough to things to recover) if Trump wins another term.  RBG will likely retire in the next term and they regard another Trump SC pick as the death knell for Civil Rights.  Hillary losing resulted in the shift of the SC "because kids who didn't understand what was at stake decided to stay home or vote 3rd Party."  (Note: A lot of these kids are in my family) They believe too much is at stake to vote for candidates less likely to win the general election. I honestly do not believe there is any policy or debate performance that would change their minds.  The overall mindset is THIS IS NOT A DRILL. 

Getting Trump out of office is the only objective.  Biden is who they see as the only shot to do that.  Period.  They believe voting for another candidate in the primary is a luxury they do not have.  "For you kids it may be ok, we were kids once too.  You don't know how much had to fight to get to where we are.  I don't have enough time to gamble." 

Again, it's purely anecdotal, but I doubt the numbers for Biden's black support will decrease...if anything the numbers may go up.
Interesting perspective and it's one I don't actually disagree with relative to some of the proposals Bernie/Warren are pushing.  A more moderate candidate is needed to win a general election and things like student loan forgiveness aren't even popular with moderate democrats never mind people further right on the spectrum.  I guess I just see others in the primary that offer that and don't carry the baggage that Biden has.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on June 30, 2019, 11:04:55 PM
One of my questions is -- what makes Elizabeth Warren any more electable than Hillary Clinton?  I don't know Warren well.

She has absolutely zero charisma.  She claims to be native American when tests show she's no more native American than the average American.  Too much non-sense.  Demonizes corporate  America.  Wants to give away too much free stuff.

Biden is still looking like the best of the bunch that has any chance.

With the rolling Trump economy, the dems need to hope the economy goes to shit before the election, or it's going to be tough sailing, regardless of what any head to head polls might say.  We know how unreliable they can be when it comes to Trump

I guess the average American is then part native American.

Yes, that was my point.  She has a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American.  That's what makes it a joke.  The indians were insulted that she tried to claim herself to be one as well.

You can only be a Native American if you've been recognized by a tribe (are a tribal citizen), just as you can only be Italian if you have Italian citizenship. Warren's not claiming to be Native American, but to have Native American heritage...  like if your ancestor came over from Italy, you're not Italian, but Italian-American. 

Having "a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American" is not a good argument.  There are lots of Americans of all types. Native Americans make up only 2% of the population, and of those, few are full blooded. If you average them you'll get a low percentage. One of the best studies so far (https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(14)00476-5#secsectitle0135) looked at a self-selected sample of Americans who submitted DNA to 23andMe and gave permission for their data to be used in the study.  Indeed, the average percentage Native American markers found in European Americans was only 0.18%. This would be an average of a lot of people with zero detectable Native DNA, with some people with a little, and a few people with a lot.

Warren's results  (https://web.archive.org/web/20181015162140/https://mk0elizabethwarh5ore.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Bustamante_Report_2018.pdf) suggest about 1.6% of her DNA were from Native ancestry.  This could have been from one Native ancestor 6 generations ago (her grandmother's grandmother's grandmother), or from SEVERAL ancestors up to 10 generations ago.

However it makes more sense to look at the percentage  of the population of self-identified European Americans who have  Native American DNA.
Quote
Using a less stringent threshold of 1%, our estimates suggest that as many as 8% of individuals from Louisiana and upward of 3% of individuals from some states in the West and Southwest carry Native American ancestry (Figure S7).

From the above study, Warren belongs to a rather small group of European Americans  (looks like about 3-4% of people in OK, from their figure) with enough Native DNA to hit the 1% threshold. Make of that what you will. 

While it's important to listen to Native voices who are pointing out that it takes more than DNA or family legends to be a Native American, and who are frustrated with cultural appropriation, it's also important to listen to those who  support Senator Warren and are thankful for the work she has done as an ally of several Native tribes. (https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/eastern-band-of-cherokee-chief-sen-warren-does-not-claim-tribal-citizenry-only-tribal-ancestry/)

Also, if you don't support the things that Native Americans truly care about, like upholding the Indian Child Welfare Act (https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/child-welfare-2/nations-first-family-separation-policy-indian-child-welfare-act/32431), upholding treaties and sovereignty of Native nations, (https://standwithstandingrock.net/) a stop to degrading and dehumanizing Native faces in the media, and a start to spreading accurate and diverse depictions of Native Americans in the news and popular culture

--then you need to consider why you care about this issue at all.
 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: SaucyAussie on July 01, 2019, 05:12:12 AM
You can only be a Native American if you've been recognized by a tribe (are a tribal citizen), just as you can only be Italian if you have Italian citizenship. Warren's not claiming to be Native American, but to have Native American heritage...  like if your ancestor came over from Italy, you're not Italian, but Italian-American. 

No, Warren did claim to be Native American (or "American Indian")  and has since apologized for it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-calling-herself-native-american/2019/02/05/1627df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d7f7c5b8df6
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 01, 2019, 05:25:13 AM
Having "a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American" is not a good argument.

It's not, but that was HER argument, not mine.  Her tiny fractional amount of American native genes is what she provided as proof of being native American.  I consider it a huge lie, and it disqualifies her from being president.

You can only be a Native American if you've been recognized by a tribe (are a tribal citizen), just as you can only be Italian if you have Italian citizenship. Warren's not claiming to be Native American, but to have Native American heritage...  like if your ancestor came over from Italy, you're not Italian, but Italian-American. 

No, Warren did claim to be Native American (or "American Indian")  and has since apologized for it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-calling-herself-native-american/2019/02/05/1627df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d7f7c5b8df6

Yes, indeed.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on July 01, 2019, 05:53:39 AM
You can only be a Native American if you've been recognized by a tribe (are a tribal citizen), just as you can only be Italian if you have Italian citizenship. Warren's not claiming to be Native American, but to have Native American heritage...  like if your ancestor came over from Italy, you're not Italian, but Italian-American. 

No, Warren did claim to be Native American (or "American Indian")  and has since apologized for it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-calling-herself-native-american/2019/02/05/1627df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d7f7c5b8df6

Yes, but she doesn't make the claim now, nor do I think she has since she was educated on why this is incorrect. Has she done so since the late 1980s?

One issue is that there is no term for people who are of Native American descent.  Native Americans are people who are actually tribal members, so there needs to be a term like "Native American American" for those with a kinship. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on July 01, 2019, 06:00:00 AM
Having "a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American" is not a good argument.

It's not, but that was HER argument, not mine.  Her tiny fractional amount of American native genes is what she provided as proof of being native American.  I consider it a huge lie, and it disqualifies her from being president.

Quote
She has a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American.  That's what makes it a joke.

Why would she argue that? It's your argument. You were comparing her percentage to the average percentage to say that even her DNA test didn't support that she had an unusual amount of Native heritage.  But the data show that she does.  She has more Native DNA than do 97% of European Americans in OK, a state enriched with people with Native American DNA, in a sample that is enriched for people who felt there is something interesting enough in their DNA to go for 23andMe testing. 

It doesn't make her a Native American, but it does suggest that her family story was not made up. The fact that she has this percentage Native DNA and had an oral history of heritage, and that she accrued no known benefit to this story, support the contention that she was/is not lying.  She was just uneducated about tribal membership in a way that was not unusual in the 1980s or even today.  She was incorrect, but not telling deliberate falsehoods.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: SaucyAussie on July 01, 2019, 06:38:15 AM
You can only be a Native American if you've been recognized by a tribe (are a tribal citizen), just as you can only be Italian if you have Italian citizenship. Warren's not claiming to be Native American, but to have Native American heritage...  like if your ancestor came over from Italy, you're not Italian, but Italian-American. 

No, Warren did claim to be Native American (or "American Indian")  and has since apologized for it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-calling-herself-native-american/2019/02/05/1627df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d7f7c5b8df6

Yes, but she doesn't make the claim now, nor do I think she has since she was educated on why this is incorrect. Has she done so since the late 1980s?

One issue is that there is no term for people who are of Native American descent.  Native Americans are people who are actually tribal members, so there needs to be a term like "Native American American" for those with a kinship.

Fair enough.  And certainly it pales in comparison to some of the things the current president has claimed.  But I don't think the issue is going away.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on July 01, 2019, 06:51:27 AM
Damn, Buttigieg raised almost $25M in 2Q. I'm guessing a few other candidates will exceed that, but it seems sufficient to keep him in the race long-term.

You'd think that candidates who raised more might want to announce their hauls today to steal some of his limelight. Bernie? Biden? Harris? Warren?

And candidates who raised much less might want to wait a few days? I think disclosures are due by the 15th so they can't hide their totals after that.

(and on Twitter, the salty Beto supporters are out in force! I don't engage anyone, but I watch, and holy God they must really blame Pete for Beto's lack of campaign momentum)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: KBecks on July 01, 2019, 06:53:41 AM
I was recently very involved in a local election campaign, and at least locally, it's often the hardest worker with the most money who wins.  Who will work the hardest and spend the most money out of this candidate pool?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: KBecks on July 01, 2019, 06:57:08 AM
But I don't think the issue is going away.

That's the question.  Warren is Pocahontas to conservatives at this point and has been mocked and labeled for it.  Biden is Creepy Uncle Joe.  Both are disadvantages because these labels may have some power to sway the undecideds.

I am watching this video, only 1:20 minutes in, and I have to take a break.  Being female and seeing how uncomfortable these girls and the mother, and the women are, it's very, very uncomfortable. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKuIfUIBjBM
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIPurpose on July 01, 2019, 07:08:14 AM
But I don't think the issue is going away.

That's the question.  Warren is Pocahontas to conservatives at this point and has been mocked and labeled for it.  Biden is Creepy Uncle Joe.  Both are disadvantages because these labels may have some power to sway the undecideds.

I'm not so sure about this. Hillary usually didn't talk too much about Bengazi or other past events while campaigning. But with Warren owning up to most of it, it kind of kills it. Trump may try to make it a thing, but it just doesn't stick quite as well.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: KBecks on July 01, 2019, 07:10:43 AM
Warren's issue may die down.  But Biden?  Here is his statement, saying that there's been concern about his "gestures of support and encouragement".   I mean, what a politician!   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNqtmoZT6vE

Any woman who has been touched too much (and many, many, many have) will have a reaction to these videos of him being too touchy feely, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG GIRLS!!! 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIPurpose on July 01, 2019, 07:57:06 AM
Warren's issue may die down.  But Biden?  Here is his statement, saying that there's been concern about his "gestures of support and encouragement".   I mean, what a politician!   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNqtmoZT6vE

Any woman who has been touched too much (and many, many, many have) will have a reaction to these videos of him being too touchy feely, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG GIRLS!!!

Oh on this part I fully agree. I don't actually think Biden is going to win. People will see that he has a filthy past and not vote for him. Once the debates filter down to 5 people or so, the top runners will no longer be able to avoid the microphone. And Biden just has a way of sticking his foot in it.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on July 01, 2019, 08:42:41 AM
(and on Twitter, the salty Beto supporters are out in force! I don't engage anyone, but I watch, and holy God they must really blame Pete for Beto's lack of campaign momentum)

It certainly seems like they're in the same swim lane to me, so they'll think that they are competing for a very similar group of supporters.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: KBecks on July 01, 2019, 08:45:30 AM
My question about Beto is that if he couldn't take down Ted Cruz, what makes anyone think he can take down Trump?  Why would you put a defeated Senate candidate on the top of your ticket? 

I mean, if that's who you want, fine!
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on July 01, 2019, 08:53:24 AM
My question about Beto is that if he couldn't take down Ted Cruz, what makes anyone think he can take down Trump?  Why would you put a defeated Senate candidate on the top of your ticket? 

I mean, if that's who you want, fine!
I donít think most general observers really think Beto is going to 1600 Pennsylvania. He does put a lot of momentum behind Texas flipping towards blue in 2020. I still think that is a long shot, but has a lot of value. A flipped Texas would really change the electoral math.

My standard broken-record statement for these big primary fields is that Iíd really like to see ranked choice voting. I also think that people should voice their support (even for more than one candidate) early. Primaries tend to be driven by the more ardent people in each party, which tends to pull away from the center, be it to the left or the right. Iím not so sure party-driven primaries are all positives as a way to select a president.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: sherr on July 01, 2019, 09:23:28 AM
My question about Beto is that if he couldn't take down Ted Cruz, what makes anyone think he can take down Trump?

Texas is far more Republican than the nation as a whole. In fact it's primarily because he came so close to defeating Cruz in Texas that people think he would win against Trump in a nationwide election.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: KBecks on July 01, 2019, 09:25:28 AM
My question about Beto is that if he couldn't take down Ted Cruz, what makes anyone think he can take down Trump?

This is kind of a silly question. Texas is far more Republican than the nation as a whole. In fact it's primarily because he came so close to defeating Cruz in Texas that people think he would win against Trump in a nationwide election.

But we can already call Beto a loser and it's accurate. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 01, 2019, 04:32:29 PM
Having "a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American" is not a good argument.

It's not, but that was HER argument, not mine.  Her tiny fractional amount of American native genes is what she provided as proof of being native American.  I consider it a huge lie, and it disqualifies her from being president.

Quote
She has a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American.  That's what makes it a joke.

Why would she argue that? It's your argument.

I'm the one posting about it because I'm telling you about HER argument.  I don't accept her argument.  She was proven a fraud regarding the whole issue.  Even after her recent test, she thought that supported her argument.  Then the truth came out that the average American was in the same range as Warren was.  She should have just left it alone rather than making a fool out of herself.

Warren's issue may die down.  But Biden?  Here is his statement, saying that there's been concern about his "gestures of support and encouragement".   I mean, what a politician!   

Any woman who has been touched too much (and many, many, many have) will have a reaction to these videos of him being too touchy feely, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG GIRLS!!!

Oh on this part I fully agree. I don't actually think Biden is going to win. People will see that he has a filthy past and not vote for him. Once the debates filter down to 5 people or so, the top runners will no longer be able to avoid the microphone. And Biden just has a way of sticking his foot in it.

If it's not Biden, then it hope it's not any of the other democrat front-runners.  Some of the lower tier candidates don't look bad, but most people want more free stuff.  I don't consider it a filthy past just for putting his arm around someone or putting his hands on their shoulders.  This is something people do all the time, and it's being made out to be something sleezy with Biden.  If he was grabbing some T&A, it would be different.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: nick663 on July 01, 2019, 04:55:18 PM
My question about Beto is that if he couldn't take down Ted Cruz, what makes anyone think he can take down Trump?

This is kind of a silly question. Texas is far more Republican than the nation as a whole. In fact it's primarily because he came so close to defeating Cruz in Texas that people think he would win against Trump in a nationwide election.

But we can already call Beto a loser and it's accurate.
Obama lost a 2000 election for the US House of Representatives.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Illinois%27s_1st_congressional_district_election
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIPurpose on July 01, 2019, 06:20:47 PM
Warren's issue may die down.  But Biden?  Here is his statement, saying that there's been concern about his "gestures of support and encouragement".   I mean, what a politician!   

Any woman who has been touched too much (and many, many, many have) will have a reaction to these videos of him being too touchy feely, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG GIRLS!!!

Oh on this part I fully agree. I don't actually think Biden is going to win. People will see that he has a filthy past and not vote for him. Once the debates filter down to 5 people or so, the top runners will no longer be able to avoid the microphone. And Biden just has a way of sticking his foot in it.

If it's not Biden, then it hope it's not any of the other democrat front-runners.  Some of the lower tier candidates don't look bad, but most people want more free stuff.  I don't consider it a filthy past just for putting his arm around someone or putting his hands on their shoulders.  This is something people do all the time, and it's being made out to be something sleezy with Biden.  If he was grabbing some T&A, it would be different.

Everyone is promising free stuff. GOP, Trump, Biden, and everyone on the left. Just saying "AAHHhhh people will only vote for them because they want handouts!!!11" It's just that you like the "free" stuff you get over the "free" stuff other people get.

Seriously, Biden putting his arm around people is bad, but is not what will destroy him. I'm talking about the busing situation, refusing to back away from bad political relationships from the 70's, and being overall a candidate with 0 ideas. He thinks the GOP that refused to hear Merrick Garland is going to start playing ball. His politics are a generation too old, and even many of the common day people know it's stupid to think that Mitch McConnell is  suddenly going to start cooperating with the president. Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks that you have to get people to pressure the politicians to make change. You have to fight for what you want.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 01, 2019, 07:44:35 PM
Warren's issue may die down.  But Biden?  Here is his statement, saying that there's been concern about his "gestures of support and encouragement".   I mean, what a politician!   

Any woman who has been touched too much (and many, many, many have) will have a reaction to these videos of him being too touchy feely, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG GIRLS!!!

Oh on this part I fully agree. I don't actually think Biden is going to win. People will see that he has a filthy past and not vote for him. Once the debates filter down to 5 people or so, the top runners will no longer be able to avoid the microphone. And Biden just has a way of sticking his foot in it.

If it's not Biden, then it hope it's not any of the other democrat front-runners.  Some of the lower tier candidates don't look bad, but most people want more free stuff.  I don't consider it a filthy past just for putting his arm around someone or putting his hands on their shoulders.  This is something people do all the time, and it's being made out to be something sleezy with Biden.  If he was grabbing some T&A, it would be different.

Everyone is promising free stuff. GOP, Trump, Biden, and everyone on the left. Just saying "AAHHhhh people will only vote for them because they want handouts!!!11" It's just that you like the "free" stuff you get over the "free" stuff other people get.

Seriously, Biden putting his arm around people is bad, but is not what will destroy him. I'm talking about the busing situation, refusing to back away from bad political relationships from the 70's, and being overall a candidate with 0 ideas. He thinks the GOP that refused to hear Merrick Garland is going to start playing ball. His politics are a generation too old, and even many of the common day people know it's stupid to think that Mitch McConnell is  suddenly going to start cooperating with the president. Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks that you have to get people to pressure the politicians to make change. You have to fight for what you want.

Actually, there are plenty of common ideas between the candidates, and Biden shares various ideas.  There's nothing remarkable there with any of the candidates' ideas - most of them are bad ideas.  Here's a partial list:

free pre-K
UBI dividend (not really universal, has exclusions)
$6000 tax credit (has exclusions, even for poor elderly)
baby bonds
reparations
free college
wiped college debt
mandated paid family leave
free child care
healthcare for illegals / universal healthcare / public option / Medicare for all - not necessarily free

I support health care laws like the ACA, Medicare, and maybe Medicare for All, for American citizens but not anything else in that list above.  It's the health care issue which turns me off from Trump, despite him being strong on immigration and the economy.  I just can't see taking health care away from 20 million people.  There's never a candidate I really like - it's a matter of picking the least worst.

It was common for whites to not support busing back in the 60's and 70's.  There were plenty of reasons to oppose it.  I don't consider that a negative factor on voting for a presidential candidate in 2019.  It certainly didn't stop Barack Obama from choosing Biden as his VP running mate.

Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks?  You wouldn't know it from the policies they are pushing.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on July 01, 2019, 08:01:46 PM
Warren's issue may die down.  But Biden?  Here is his statement, saying that there's been concern about his "gestures of support and encouragement".   I mean, what a politician!   

Any woman who has been touched too much (and many, many, many have) will have a reaction to these videos of him being too touchy feely, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG GIRLS!!!

Oh on this part I fully agree. I don't actually think Biden is going to win. People will see that he has a filthy past and not vote for him. Once the debates filter down to 5 people or so, the top runners will no longer be able to avoid the microphone. And Biden just has a way of sticking his foot in it.

If it's not Biden, then it hope it's not any of the other democrat front-runners.  Some of the lower tier candidates don't look bad, but most people want more free stuff.  I don't consider it a filthy past just for putting his arm around someone or putting his hands on their shoulders.  This is something people do all the time, and it's being made out to be something sleezy with Biden.  If he was grabbing some T&A, it would be different.

Everyone is promising free stuff. GOP, Trump, Biden, and everyone on the left. Just saying "AAHHhhh people will only vote for them because they want handouts!!!11" It's just that you like the "free" stuff you get over the "free" stuff other people get.

Seriously, Biden putting his arm around people is bad, but is not what will destroy him. I'm talking about the busing situation, refusing to back away from bad political relationships from the 70's, and being overall a candidate with 0 ideas. He thinks the GOP that refused to hear Merrick Garland is going to start playing ball. His politics are a generation too old, and even many of the common day people know it's stupid to think that Mitch McConnell is  suddenly going to start cooperating with the president. Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks that you have to get people to pressure the politicians to make change. You have to fight for what you want.

Actually, there are plenty of common ideas between the candidates, and Biden shares various ideas.  There's nothing remarkable there with any of the candidates' ideas - most of them are bad ideas.  Here's a partial list:

free pre-K
UBI dividend (not really universal, has exclusions)
$6000 tax credit (has exclusions, even for poor elderly)
baby bonds
reparations
free college
wiped college debt
mandated paid family leave
free child care
healthcare for illegals / universal healthcare / public option / Medicare for all - not necessarily free

I support health care laws like the ACA, Medicare, and maybe Medicare for All, for American citizens but not anything else in that list above.  It's the health care issue which turns me off from Trump, despite him being strong on immigration and the economy.  I just can't see taking health care away from 20 million people.  There's never a candidate I really like - it's a matter of picking the least worst.

It was common for whites to not support busing back in the 60's and 70's.  There were plenty of reasons to oppose it.  I don't consider that a negative factor on voting for a presidential candidate in 2019.  It certainly didn't stop Barack Obama from choosing Biden as his VP running mate.

Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks?  You wouldn't know it from the policies they are pushing.
Speaking for myself, I like those policies better than the Subsidized and/or unfunded trillions in tax breaks for the most wealthy (and yes, I did benefit from the Trump tax cuts).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: nick663 on July 01, 2019, 08:38:10 PM
Warren's issue may die down.  But Biden?  Here is his statement, saying that there's been concern about his "gestures of support and encouragement".   I mean, what a politician!   

Any woman who has been touched too much (and many, many, many have) will have a reaction to these videos of him being too touchy feely, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUNG GIRLS!!!

Oh on this part I fully agree. I don't actually think Biden is going to win. People will see that he has a filthy past and not vote for him. Once the debates filter down to 5 people or so, the top runners will no longer be able to avoid the microphone. And Biden just has a way of sticking his foot in it.

If it's not Biden, then it hope it's not any of the other democrat front-runners.  Some of the lower tier candidates don't look bad, but most people want more free stuff.  I don't consider it a filthy past just for putting his arm around someone or putting his hands on their shoulders.  This is something people do all the time, and it's being made out to be something sleezy with Biden.  If he was grabbing some T&A, it would be different.

Everyone is promising free stuff. GOP, Trump, Biden, and everyone on the left. Just saying "AAHHhhh people will only vote for them because they want handouts!!!11" It's just that you like the "free" stuff you get over the "free" stuff other people get.

Seriously, Biden putting his arm around people is bad, but is not what will destroy him. I'm talking about the busing situation, refusing to back away from bad political relationships from the 70's, and being overall a candidate with 0 ideas. He thinks the GOP that refused to hear Merrick Garland is going to start playing ball. His politics are a generation too old, and even many of the common day people know it's stupid to think that Mitch McConnell is  suddenly going to start cooperating with the president. Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks that you have to get people to pressure the politicians to make change. You have to fight for what you want.

Actually, there are plenty of common ideas between the candidates, and Biden shares various ideas.  There's nothing remarkable there with any of the candidates' ideas - most of them are bad ideas.  Here's a partial list:

free pre-K
UBI dividend (not really universal, has exclusions)
$6000 tax credit (has exclusions, even for poor elderly)
baby bonds
reparations
free college
wiped college debt
mandated paid family leave
free child care
healthcare for illegals / universal healthcare / public option / Medicare for all - not necessarily free

I support health care laws like the ACA, Medicare, and maybe Medicare for All, for American citizens but not anything else in that list above.  It's the health care issue which turns me off from Trump, despite him being strong on immigration and the economy.  I just can't see taking health care away from 20 million people.  There's never a candidate I really like - it's a matter of picking the least worst.

It was common for whites to not support busing back in the 60's and 70's.  There were plenty of reasons to oppose it.  I don't consider that a negative factor on voting for a presidential candidate in 2019.  It certainly didn't stop Barack Obama from choosing Biden as his VP running mate.

Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks?  You wouldn't know it from the policies they are pushing.
Speaking for myself, I like those policies better than the Subsidized and/or unfunded trillions in tax breaks for the most wealthy (and yes, I did benefit from the Trump tax cuts).
Bernie's plan will wipe out student loan debt with no income disqualifier.  Guess who stands to benefit the most from that?  Doctors, lawyers, and other professions that you would likely describe as "wealthy."

Personally, I have yet to hear a good case articulated for student loan forgiveness and until I do I consider it a deal breaker.  It doesn't seem fundamentally fair to take tax dollars to pay off debt that adults willingly signed up for and we have so many other places that could use the money more effectively (national debt, infrastructure, healthcare, green energy, etc).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Davnasty on July 01, 2019, 09:00:18 PM
Having "a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American" is not a good argument.

It's not, but that was HER argument, not mine.  Her tiny fractional amount of American native genes is what she provided as proof of being native American.  I consider it a huge lie, and it disqualifies her from being president.

Quote
She has a small fraction of native American in her just like the average American.  That's what makes it a joke.

Why would she argue that? It's your argument.

I'm the one posting about it because I'm telling you about HER argument.  I don't accept her argument.  She was proven a fraud regarding the whole issue.  Even after her recent test, she thought that supported her argument.  Then the truth came out that the average American was in the same range as Warren was.  She should have just left it alone rather than making a fool out of herself.

No, it's not her argument. You see the part I bolded up there? You're adding that in.

Poundwise gave a good explanation (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2020-potus-candidates-101697/msg2406534/#msg2406534) of this that shows you're mischaracterizing what is meant by "average". The way you say it, one might think many or most Americans have as much Native American genetics as her, which is not the case.

For further explanation https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elizabeth-warren-dna-test-fact-check-native-american-ancestry-boston-globe-journalists-trump-a8595001.html

Although I do agree that she should have left it alone. Giving numbers out just opens it up to misrepresentation and I think it was a poor tactic when dealing with someone like Trump. I prefer Buttigieg's approach of "I don't care".


ETA: I wasn't aware of this until now, but Warren also tweeted:

Quote
By the way, @realDonaldTrump: Remember saying on 7/5 that youíd give $1M to a charity of my choice if my DNA showed Native American ancestry? I remember Ė and here's the verdict. Please send the check to the National Indigenous Womenís Resource Center: http://www.niwrc.org/donate-niwrc

That it was a way of calling him out on the donation and giving money to a good cause gives some justification for her decision to take a genetic test. I still disagree with her decision, but not as strongly as before. Unfortunately:

Quote
Trump then denied offering the $1 million, adding ďwho cares."

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/10/15/17978158/elizabeth-warren-native-american-claims-dna-ancestry-tests


Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on July 01, 2019, 10:05:51 PM
To follow up, it's not meaningful to compare her score directly to the average score for European Americans, since the average could have been derived many different ways, i.e. if you average 10,000 people with the exact same score of 0.01%, you can get the same results if you average one full blooded Native American with 9,999 people with no Native ancestry at all.

What I'm trying to say is that it is RARE to have as much Native DNA as Warren has, little as it is. The simplest explanation is that her family stories hold a kernel of truth. 

That said, she could have 100% Native DNA and not be a Native American.  To be Native American, you have to be a citizen of a Native state, and she's not. It's like if all your ancestors came from Germany but you and your parents were born in the States. You're not German, just German-American.  Warren didn't understand the distinction between "Native American" and "Native-American".  But now she does and hopefully everyone else does too, which is a small silver lining, since fraudulent claims of tribal descent are frequently used to game the system and drain resources away from legitimate tribal members.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: KBecks on July 02, 2019, 05:02:33 AM
My question about Beto is that if he couldn't take down Ted Cruz, what makes anyone think he can take down Trump?

This is kind of a silly question. Texas is far more Republican than the nation as a whole. In fact it's primarily because he came so close to defeating Cruz in Texas that people think he would win against Trump in a nationwide election.

But we can already call Beto a loser and it's accurate.
Obama lost a 2000 election for the US House of Representatives.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Illinois%27s_1st_congressional_district_election

Yes, but he didn't run for President immediately after that loss.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 02, 2019, 09:56:04 AM
most of them are bad ideas. 

free pre-K


Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks?  You wouldn't know it from the policies they are pushing.

Free pre-K is a great idea. It partly pays for itself as more mothers will be able to reenter the workforce, and pay more income taxes, which in turn pay for free pre-K.
This increased labor participation grows the economy, as well as provides for healthy children that will have a greater chance of earning more as adults than without pre-K.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on July 02, 2019, 10:06:25 AM
most of them are bad ideas. 

free pre-K


Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks?  You wouldn't know it from the policies they are pushing.

Free pre-K is a great idea. It partly pays for itself as more mothers will be able to reenter the workforce, and pay more income taxes, which in turn pay for free pre-K.
This increased labor participation grows the economy, as well as provides for healthy children that will have a greater chance of earning more as adults than without pre-K.

And it has lasting positive effects for all kids, especially those who grow up in poverty.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/06/10/apm_documentary_early_lessons?fbclid=IwAR24-husPRFkLUUN18MISyZ2OQVDW-tIJi7QdwGGxoFTmzqG8m_6xaR6DRY
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Psychstache on July 02, 2019, 10:38:26 AM
most of them are bad ideas. 

free pre-K


Bernie and Warren have much more realistic outlooks?  You wouldn't know it from the policies they are pushing.

Free pre-K is a great idea. It partly pays for itself as more mothers will be able to reenter the workforce, and pay more income taxes, which in turn pay for free pre-K.
This increased labor participation grows the economy, as well as provides for healthy children that will have a greater chance of earning more as adults than without pre-K.

And it has lasting positive effects for all kids, especially those who grow up in poverty.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/06/10/apm_documentary_early_lessons?fbclid=IwAR24-husPRFkLUUN18MISyZ2OQVDW-tIJi7QdwGGxoFTmzqG8m_6xaR6DRY

Yeah, it always seems weird when people are like "paying taxes for 5 year olds is fine, but 4 year olds is a bridge too far." Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: pecunia on July 02, 2019, 05:20:30 PM
- SNIP- SNIP-SNIP-

I support health care laws like the ACA, Medicare, and maybe Medicare for All, for American citizens but not anything else in that list above.  It's the health care issue which turns me off from Trump, despite him being strong on immigration and the economy.  I just can't see taking health care away from 20 million people.  There's never a candidate I really like - it's a matter of picking the least worst.



I don't agree with much of what you write, but you are absolutely right on with the health care.  You have a good heart in wanting to help those 20 million people.

As for Warren, I don't care if she claims she is part Australian Aborigine.  Compared to some of the wild ass things the Donald has said, her statement was nothing.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 03, 2019, 05:17:59 AM
Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

That's a straw man argument.  I never said anything about being against public education, only that I'm against additional tax dollars of mine being used to provide "free" pre-K for all kids.  I have no problem with pre-K for people that choose to pay for that luxury for their children, and possibly even a tax credit to help low income households pay for it, but I don't think I should be paying for rich families' kids to have free pre-K.

I think there are more important uses for tax dollars, including health care for American citizens and assistance to low income seniors with ever-increasing medical bills, who shouldn't have to go back to work at 80 years old just so that they don't have to make a choice between buying food to put on the table or paying for their medication.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 03, 2019, 05:31:02 AM
No, it's not her argument. You see the part I bolded up there? You're adding that in.

It's not my argument.  It was Elizabeth Warren's.  I'm merely posting about it, but I'm not the one that went on TV showing the results of a DNA test that didn't prove anything.  This was well publicized at the time.  It wasn't all that long ago - no time to provide you the links now.  Google is your friend.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on July 03, 2019, 06:58:06 AM
Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

That's a straw man argument.  I never said anything about being against public education, only that I'm against additional tax dollars of mine being used to provide "free" pre-K for all kids.  I have no problem with pre-K for people that choose to pay for that luxury for their children, and possibly even a tax credit to help low income households pay for it, but I don't think I should be paying for rich families' kids to have free pre-K.

I think there are more important uses for tax dollars, including health care for American citizens and assistance to low income seniors with ever-increasing medical bills, who shouldn't have to go back to work at 80 years old just so that they don't have to make a choice between buying food to put on the table or paying for their medication.

Well, youíre paying a lot of extra tax money for prisons to house a lot of people who, research suggests, would be more likely to graduate high school and be productive members of society if they had had access to pre-k, so... maybe think of it as just moving your tax dollars from one to the other?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on July 03, 2019, 07:10:21 AM
I've worked in both education and law (including time as a prosecutor) and long ago I reached the inescapable conclusion that educating funding (from pre-K all the way through college) saves us a HUGE amount of money down the line.

More education $ = lower criminal justice costs (think of costs for cops, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, courtrooms, court staff, probation officers, jail/prison buildings/maintenance/staff, parole officers, etc etc it doesn't end.

More education $ = more tax revenue for government because the people above (points up) are working instead of rotting away in jail or on HIP

More education $ = a more educated workforce overall, which gives employees more leverage in dealing with employers, and also helps companies compete and thrive in the world economy

More education $ = reduces (certainly does NOT eliminate) issues of teen pregnancy, alcohol/drug addiction, hate crimes, and should create a more responsible populace re: issues like climate change.

So it makes me wonder why even the most right-wing Republican wouldn't want to make education funding the #1 priority??? Education addresses a SLEW of issues, all of which cost our society a ridiculous amount of $ each year. It's math! And it could transform our country. We have the resources to do this; we just don't have the political will.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Davnasty on July 03, 2019, 07:12:02 AM
Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

That's a straw man argument.  I never said anything about being against public education, only that I'm against additional tax dollars of mine being used to provide "free" pre-K for all kids.  I have no problem with pre-K for people that choose to pay for that luxury for their children, and possibly even a tax credit to help low income households pay for it, but I don't think I should be paying for rich families' kids to have free pre-K.

I think there are more important uses for tax dollars, including health care for American citizens and assistance to low income seniors with ever-increasing medical bills, who shouldn't have to go back to work at 80 years old just so that they don't have to make a choice between buying food to put on the table or paying for their medication.

I'm trying to think of a way to explain that you're misinterpreting what was said, but honestly the comment from Psychstache was so clear, I don't know how else to say it. Maybe just read it again?

Maybe it would help to say that you are not in the "some people" group they are referring to. You are in the "paying taxes for 5 year olds is fine, but 4 year olds is a bridge too far" group.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Davnasty on July 03, 2019, 07:28:28 AM
No, it's not her argument. You see the part I bolded up there? You're adding that in.

It's not my argument.  It was Elizabeth Warren's.  I'm merely posting about it, but I'm not the one that went on TV showing the results of a DNA test that didn't prove anything.  This was well publicized at the time.  It wasn't all that long ago - no time to provide you the links now.  Google is your friend.

I'm going to go out a limb here and say you probably didn't read the articles linked by Poundwise or myself. I'm aware that it was wellincorrectly publicized by many news sources at the time, in fact the article I linked from the Independent contains an apology for their own misrepresentation of the results:

Quote
We are not trying to defend Ms Warren's decision to release the test, just to set the record straight about what the test shows. The media bungled the interpretation of the results - and then Ms Warren's opponents used the uninformed reporting to undermine the test results even further. We fell into this trap as well and were too quick to send out a tweet (now deleted) that made an inaccurate comparison. We should have not relied on media reporting before tweeting.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Fireball on July 03, 2019, 10:50:07 AM
We have the resources to do this; we just don't have the political will.

I feel like this should be our national motto. Put it on our money or something. I don't know if anything describes the electorate any better.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: pecunia on July 03, 2019, 12:11:42 PM
We have the resources to do this; we just don't have the political will.

I feel like this should be our national motto. Put it on our money or something. I don't know if anything describes the electorate any better.

Seconded - All in favor?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on July 03, 2019, 12:15:13 PM
We have the resources to do this; we just don't have the political will.

I feel like this should be our national motto. Put it on our money or something. I don't know if anything describes the electorate any better.

Seconded - All in favor?
Thirded. But it needs to be in latin, and probably italics. "Habemus ad opibus hoc facere; non modo non ad arbitrium rei publicae"
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIPurpose on July 03, 2019, 12:39:23 PM
We have the resources to do this; we just don't have the political will.

I feel like this should be our national motto. Put it on our money or something. I don't know if anything describes the electorate any better.

Seconded - All in favor?
Thirded. But it needs to be in latin, and probably italics. "Habemus ad opibus hoc facere; non modo non ad arbitrium rei publicae"

Opes tenemus; voluntatis publicae cessat
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 03, 2019, 05:09:48 PM
Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

That's a straw man argument.  I never said anything about being against public education, only that I'm against additional tax dollars of mine being used to provide "free" pre-K for all kids.  I have no problem with pre-K for people that choose to pay for that luxury for their children, and possibly even a tax credit to help low income households pay for it, but I don't think I should be paying for rich families' kids to have free pre-K.

I think there are more important uses for tax dollars, including health care for American citizens and assistance to low income seniors with ever-increasing medical bills, who shouldn't have to go back to work at 80 years old just so that they don't have to make a choice between buying food to put on the table or paying for their medication.

I'm trying to think of a way to explain that you're misinterpreting what was said, but honestly the comment from Psychstache was so clear, I don't know how else to say it. Maybe just read it again?

I read it again.  Nothing changed.  I actually quoted him/her in my previous reply - assume you overlooked that.  I was never talking about current public education nor specifically of just pre-K.  I gave a list of "free" stuff that various candidates are offering to win votes.  Most of them are a bad ideas, but they'll promote anything and everything for support, fundraising, and votes, no matter how unlikely their ideas are to come to fruition.  I'm not against pre-K, but I believe it's a luxury that wealthy people can pay for themselves.  For struggling families that are able to return to work by sending their kids to pre-K, offering a tax credit to cover part of the costs seems like a fair compromise.

I'm more concerned about keeping taxes reasonable for the middle class and about health care and seniors who are struggling to get by who are left out some of the plans mentioned and are actually hurt by some of those plans.  It appears the democrats don't care about that voting block.  I would have thought Biden would have, but he supported cuts to SS as mentioned earlier in the thread.  I'm not saying republicans are any better, but this thread is mostly dealing with the large group of democrat candidates, which is flawed at best.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Psychstache on July 03, 2019, 06:02:19 PM
Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

That's a straw man argument.  I never said anything about being against public education, only that I'm against additional tax dollars of mine being used to provide "free" pre-K for all kids.  I have no problem with pre-K for people that choose to pay for that luxury for their children, and possibly even a tax credit to help low income households pay for it, but I don't think I should be paying for rich families' kids to have free pre-K.

I think there are more important uses for tax dollars, including health care for American citizens and assistance to low income seniors with ever-increasing medical bills, who shouldn't have to go back to work at 80 years old just so that they don't have to make a choice between buying food to put on the table or paying for their medication.

I'm trying to think of a way to explain that you're misinterpreting what was said, but honestly the comment from Psychstache was so clear, I don't know how else to say it. Maybe just read it again?

I read it again.  Nothing changed.  I actually quoted him/her in my previous reply - assume you overlooked that.  I was never talking about current public education nor specifically of just pre-K.  I gave a list of "free" stuff that various candidates are offering to win votes.  Most of them are a bad ideas, but they'll promote anything and everything for support, fundraising, and votes, no matter how unlikely their ideas are to come to fruition.  I'm not against pre-K, but I believe it's a luxury that wealthy people can pay for themselves.  For struggling families that are able to return to work by sending their kids to pre-K, offering a tax credit to cover part of the costs seems like a fair compromise.

I'm more concerned about keeping taxes reasonable for the middle class and about health care and seniors who are struggling to get by who are left out some of the plans mentioned and are actually hurt by some of those plans.  It appears the democrats don't care about that voting block.  I would have thought Biden would have, but he supported cuts to SS as mentioned earlier in the thread.  I'm not saying republicans are any better, but this thread is mostly dealing with the large group of democrat candidates, which is flawed at best.

You quoted half of me. Here's the full post for reference:

"Yeah, it always seems weird when people are like "paying taxes for 5 year olds is fine, but 4 year olds is a bridge too far." Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with."

Clearly there are two groups referenced: those opposed to adding universal PreK, but are fine with public education for 5-18 year olds, and those opposed to universal PreK who are also opposed to public education in general. Clearly you fall into the 1st group. That's fine, I just find it somewhat inconsistent (For example, you keep calling PreK a luxury for rich families that can afford private PreK, but have no problem subsidizing the rich families can afford private Kindergarten. Why is teaching 4 year olds a luxury but teaching 5 year olds is a right? If there are better priorities for tax dollars than teaching 4 year olds, why not abolish universal kindergarten and save the tax dollars we spend teaching 5 year olds?)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIPurpose on July 03, 2019, 08:41:30 PM
Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

That's a straw man argument.  I never said anything about being against public education, only that I'm against additional tax dollars of mine being used to provide "free" pre-K for all kids.  I have no problem with pre-K for people that choose to pay for that luxury for their children, and possibly even a tax credit to help low income households pay for it, but I don't think I should be paying for rich families' kids to have free pre-K.

I think there are more important uses for tax dollars, including health care for American citizens and assistance to low income seniors with ever-increasing medical bills, who shouldn't have to go back to work at 80 years old just so that they don't have to make a choice between buying food to put on the table or paying for their medication.

I'm trying to think of a way to explain that you're misinterpreting what was said, but honestly the comment from Psychstache was so clear, I don't know how else to say it. Maybe just read it again?

I read it again.  Nothing changed.  I actually quoted him/her in my previous reply - assume you overlooked that.  I was never talking about current public education nor specifically of just pre-K.  I gave a list of "free" stuff that various candidates are offering to win votes.  Most of them are a bad ideas, but they'll promote anything and everything for support, fundraising, and votes, no matter how unlikely their ideas are to come to fruition.  I'm not against pre-K, but I believe it's a luxury that wealthy people can pay for themselves.  For struggling families that are able to return to work by sending their kids to pre-K, offering a tax credit to cover part of the costs seems like a fair compromise.

I'm more concerned about keeping taxes reasonable for the middle class and about health care and seniors who are struggling to get by who are left out some of the plans mentioned and are actually hurt by some of those plans.  It appears the democrats don't care about that voting block.  I would have thought Biden would have, but he supported cuts to SS as mentioned earlier in the thread.  I'm not saying republicans are any better, but this thread is mostly dealing with the large group of democrat candidates, which is flawed at best.

You quoted half of me. Here's the full post for reference:

"Yeah, it always seems weird when people are like "paying taxes for 5 year olds is fine, but 4 year olds is a bridge too far." Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with."

Clearly there are two groups referenced: those opposed to adding universal PreK, but are fine with public education for 5-18 year olds, and those opposed to universal PreK who are also opposed to public education in general. Clearly you fall into the 1st group. That's fine, I just find it somewhat inconsistent (For example, you keep calling PreK a luxury for rich families that can afford private PreK, but have no problem subsidizing the rich families can afford private Kindergarten. Why is teaching 4 year olds a luxury but teaching 5 year olds is a right? If there are better priorities for tax dollars than teaching 4 year olds, why not abolish universal kindergarten and save the tax dollars we spend teaching 5 year olds?)

Which is truly why it is silly to talk about "free" stuff. Everything the government does is technically "free". We all get "free" electricity, oil, food, roads, police, firemen, military, politicians, libraries, primary and secondary education, weather data, justice, etc. . So when the GOP talks about tax cuts they are saying that you can have all the same government for less money. ie "free" benefits. When the GOP add to military spending without raising taxes, they are creating a "free" military.

Using the word "free" so ubiquitously makes it lose all meaning and is nothing more than a calling card for declaring your political affiliation. Honestly, democrats should start framing everything the GOP does as 'handouts' just to point out how ridiculous this whole line of thinking is.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on July 03, 2019, 09:11:20 PM
Thank you FIPurpose for deconstructing these terms.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 04, 2019, 09:00:32 AM
Then again some people against universal pre k are also against public education overall, which is a more consistent stance, but one I can't possibly agree with.

That's a straw man argument.  I never said anything about being against public education, only that I'm against additional tax dollars of mine being used to provide "free" pre-K for all kids.  I have no problem with pre-K for people that choose to pay for that luxury for their children, and possibly even a tax credit to help low income households pay for it, but I don't think I should be paying for rich families' kids to have free pre-K.

I think there are more important uses for tax dollars, including health care for American citizens and assistance to low income seniors with ever-increasing medical bills, who shouldn't have to go back to work at 80 years old just so that they don't have to make a choice between buying food to put on the table or paying for their medication.

I'm trying to think of a way to explain that you're misinterpreting what was said, but honestly the comment from Psychstache was so clear, I don't know how else to say it. Maybe just read it again?

I read it again.  Nothing changed.  I actually quoted him/her in my previous reply - assume you overlooked that.  I was never talking about current public education nor specifically of just pre-K.  I gave a list of "free" stuff that various candidates are offering to win votes.  Most of them are a bad ideas, but they'll promote anything and everything for support, fundraising, and votes, no matter how unlikely their ideas are to come to fruition.  I'm not against pre-K, but I believe it's a luxury that wealthy people can pay for themselves.  For struggling families that are able to return to work by sending their kids to pre-K, offering a tax credit to cover part of the costs seems like a fair compromise.

I'm more concerned about keeping taxes reasonable for the middle class and about health care and seniors who are struggling to get by who are left out some of the plans mentioned and are actually hurt by some of those plans.  It appears the democrats don't care about that voting block.  I would have thought Biden would have, but he supported cuts to SS as mentioned earlier in the thread.  I'm not saying republicans are any better, but this thread is mostly dealing with the large group of democrat candidates, which is flawed at best.

Which is truly why it is silly to talk about "free" stuff. Everything the government does is technically "free". We all get "free" electricity, oil, food, roads, police, firemen, military, politicians, libraries, primary and secondary education, weather data, justice, etc. . So when the GOP talks about tax cuts they are saying that you can have all the same government for less money. ie "free" benefits. When the GOP add to military spending without raising taxes, they are creating a "free" military.

You're using a straw man argument because you're talking "existing" expenses where the usage is directly "shared by everyone", such as the military and police that protect the nation and community at large, and I was never talking about existing expenses but rather the additional "free stuff" to pander to specific blocks of people.  Again, here is a list of some of the new "ideas" that are being promoted by the candidates:

free pre-K
UBI dividend (not really universal, has exclusions)
$6000 tax credit (has exclusions, even for poor elderly)
baby bonds
reparations
free college
wiped college debt
mandated paid family leave
free child care
healthcare for illegals

There's also the $15/hr minimum wage increase, which will ultimately be paid for out of taxpayer's pockets.

Quote
Using the word "free" so ubiquitously makes it lose all meaning and is nothing more than a calling card for declaring your political affiliation.

Well, I don't support politicians promising more and more "free" stuff to people just to win votes, even more so when it hurts other blocks of people or puts a greater tax burden on others.  There's an unfairness to it, and we can't afford it.  As for political affiliation, I'm the one who brought up "free stuff", and I have no political affiliation.  Why do you think I've been speaking favorably of the front-runner Biden and a couple other candidates?  I'm an independent who has voted for for both republicans and democrats in both federal and state/local elections.  I don't drink anyone's Kool-aid and am more of a realist across the board.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: KBecks on July 04, 2019, 09:17:15 AM


Which is truly why it is silly to talk about "free" stuff. Everything the government does is technically "free". We all get "free" electricity, oil, food, roads, police, firemen, military, politicians, libraries, primary and secondary education, weather data, justice, etc. .

Wow. We paid $40k plus in taxes last year for our "free" stuff.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 04, 2019, 09:27:37 AM
Wow. We paid $40k plus in taxes last year for our "free" stuff.

And the cost of "free" stuff goes up faster than inflation!
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: former player on July 04, 2019, 09:41:24 AM
I was never talking about existing expenses but rather the additional "free stuff" to pander to specific blocks of people.  Again, here is a list of some of the new "ideas" that are being promoted by the candidates:

free pre-K
UBI dividend (not really universal, has exclusions)
$6000 tax credit (has exclusions, even for poor elderly)
baby bonds
reparations
free college
wiped college debt
mandated paid family leave
free child care
healthcare for illegals

You can't really separate these things out as "new expenses" without looking at the whole picture.  For instance, EMTALA already provides "free" emergency health care for undocumented immigrants - except of course it's not really free, it's paid for out of a "tax" on everyone else's use of healthcare services.  So are you objecting to EMTALA for "illegals" and would prefer to see them dying on the pavements outside hospitals?  How about providing them with "free" vaccinations, so that they don't spread the kinds of infectious diseases that could and should be eliminated in the 21st century?  Would you object to that?  Saying you are for or against "healthcare for illegals" looks more like a conditioned emotional response than a thought out policy position.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIPurpose on July 04, 2019, 09:47:55 AM
Which is truly why it is silly to talk about "free" stuff. Everything the government does is technically "free". We all get "free" electricity, oil, food, roads, police, firemen, military, politicians, libraries, primary and secondary education, weather data, justice, etc. . So when the GOP talks about tax cuts they are saying that you can have all the same government for less money. ie "free" benefits. When the GOP add to military spending without raising taxes, they are creating a "free" military.

You're using a straw man argument because you're talking "existing" expenses where the usage is directly "shared by everyone", such as the military and police that protect the nation and community at large, and I was never talking about existing expenses but rather the additional "free stuff" to pander to specific blocks of people.  Again, here is a list of some of the new "ideas" that are being promoted by the candidates:

free pre-K
UBI dividend (not really universal, has exclusions)
$6000 tax credit (has exclusions, even for poor elderly)
baby bonds
reparations
free college
wiped college debt
mandated paid family leave
free child care
healthcare for illegals

There's also the $15/hr minimum wage increase, which will ultimately be paid for out of taxpayer's pockets.

Using the word "free" so ubiquitously makes it lose all meaning and is nothing more than a calling card for declaring your political affiliation.

Well, I don't support politicians promising more and more "free" stuff to people just to win votes, even more so when it hurts other blocks of people or puts a greater tax burden on others.  There's an unfairness to it, and we can't afford it.  As for political affiliation, I'm the one who brought up "free stuff", and I have no political affiliation.  Why do you think I've been speaking favorably of the front-runner Biden and a couple other candidates?  I'm an independent who has voted for for both republicans and democrats in both federal and state/local elections.  I don't drink anyone's Kool-aid and am more of a realist across the board.

Usage may be "shared by everyone" but everyone is paying different amounts. A large majority of citizens are receiving "free" (ie subsidized) money in the form of cheaper utility prices, oil, food, etc. So maybe you're in the upper echelon of tax payers, if so, congrats.

By "existing expenses" you mean "existing free stuff". I mean I'm really just following your example of how you're using the word "free". "I don't want that free stuff because I can't see how it will benefit me. But the free stuff I'm getting today is all fine and dandy."

You're talking about what will create a larger tax burden for yourself, but half the items you listed wouldn't have anything to do with your personal bottom line, so I don't know why you continue to list them all or care so deeply about making sure they don't happen. For example, universal pre-k has been studied to actually be a net gain for society (ie it would overall lower your personal tax burden). Wiped college debt is being proposed to be paid for by a wall street tax (ie not additional income tax), this whole forum is against high trading, so I would guess you would pay relatively little of that. "Healthcare for illegals" already happens in ER's, adding them to a structured program would likely reduce costs to the system.

So no, none of this would "hurt you or other blocks of people" these are all systemic issues that are causing hurt on our entire system. Some of these would actually create more money than they would cost. BUT other people have already mentioned this in the thread, so I don't know why you continue to pretend like they're going to increase your tax burden. You were given a free secondary education. congrats! The government invested in you and then you paid back that investment many times over. Now think about what on your list of "freebees" are actually government investments in its own people. Will that investment pay itself back and then some? If so, then you should be supporting it enthusiastically, because that is basically "free" money that overall will decrease your future tax burden.

Quote
As for political affiliation, I'm the one who brought up "free stuff", and I have no political affiliation.  Why do you think I've been speaking favorably of the front-runner Biden and a couple other candidates?  I'm an independent who has voted for for both republicans and democrats in both federal and state/local elections.  I don't drink anyone's Kool-aid and am more of a realist across the board.

That's still a political affiliation.



Which is truly why it is silly to talk about "free" stuff. Everything the government does is technically "free". We all get "free" electricity, oil, food, roads, police, firemen, military, politicians, libraries, primary and secondary education, weather data, justice, etc. .

Wow. We paid $40k plus in taxes last year for our "free" stuff.

I'm guessing you included all your state and property taxes in that number, so I have no idea how to actually measure that number.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: KBecks on July 04, 2019, 09:50:25 AM
I didn't share it so you can measure it, I shared it because $40k+ ain't free.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIPurpose on July 04, 2019, 09:57:42 AM
I didn't share it so you can measure it, I shared it because $40k+ ain't free.

The top 5% of returns pay 60% of the federal income tax. So unless you're making north of 200k, you're living off of the system and taking from others. (IE your life is being subsidized by the rich)

So stop claiming that you're somehow paying "your fair share" or something. Because all your roads, oil, food, etc. Are only as cheap as they are because someone else is paying way more in taxes. Your 40k does not come close to paying for the actual costs of the benefits that you're taking from the government.

Well unless you do make more than 200k per year in AGI. Then again. Congrats, but then you also wouldn't be "middle class".
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on July 04, 2019, 10:14:34 AM
I didn't share it so you can measure it, I shared it because $40k+ ain't free.

The top 5% of returns pay 60% of the federal income tax. So unless you're making north of 200k, you're living off of the system and taking from others. (IE your life is being subsidized by the rich)

So stop claiming that you're somehow paying "your fair share" or something. Because all your roads, oil, food, etc. Are only as cheap as they are because someone else is paying way more in taxes. Your 40k does not come close to paying for the actual costs of the benefits that you're taking from the government.

Well unless you do make more than 200k per year in AGI. Then again. Congrats, but then you also wouldn't be "middle class".

It's amazing how many people don't get this. On a healthcare system like what was/is backed by some republicans, a medical procedure will wipe out that $40k 3x over. A child's education would wipe it out twice over. Raised your kids already? Great, what about their expenses for their children if they should have some. It's a bit un-American to only consider what you would benefit from taxes...particularly when you ignore all that you are.

The whole American experiment is based on the premise that EVERYONE benefits when we all progress as a society. You do not want to be a wealthy person in a country where the lower classes are on the verge of revolt. Ask history. So yes, rich people benefit, often financially, but even more so in terms of quality of life, when we all have access to the basic things, and a path towards personal progress.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 04, 2019, 12:28:14 PM
I didn't share it so you can measure it, I shared it because $40k+ ain't free.

At least you're paying for yourself, as I am.  You sometimes hear how illegal aliens are paying taxes and that their tax contribution to society means they are contributing instead of taking.  But in fact, the vast majority are net takers because the taxes they pay don't pay for their share of costs.

See this thread:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/now-that-you-are-a-net-'taker'-do-you-support-more-a-more-socialist-government/

For 2016 federal spending, it shows about $30K/yr per household and $12K/yr per capita.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 07, 2019, 12:43:54 PM

Saw on MTP this morning that Biden is still doing the best by far in polls showing candidates going head to head against Trump.  The other top candidates are within the margin of error, either tied or slightly leading Trump.

Harris got all over Biden about his busing views, and ironically, she has since admitted she has the same viewpoint on it.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: pecunia on July 07, 2019, 12:54:15 PM
So,.....all this talk about paying your way, etc.  Good to see responsible people.

Is it really responsible to be borrowing money from a foreign government to finance stuff?  History books are full of monarchs that got themselves into deep dudu by borrowing to pay for their wars.  Shuld the United States be borrowing to finance it's wars?

Which of these candidates is the most financially responsible.  Elizabeth Warren seems to know a lot about money.   You guys are frugal.  You don't want to give away the store in Social programs.  How about the other side?  I mean how about the money coming in.  Should taxes already be higher just to pay off what we've already spent?  I ten to forego immediate gratification.  Should Uncle Sam be doing some of the same?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 08, 2019, 05:03:41 PM
Should taxes already be higher just to pay off what we've already spent?  I ten to forego immediate gratification.  Should Uncle Sam be doing some of the same?

They would need to be a lot higher for a long time to pay off what we've already spent (borrowed).  But, we're still headed in the wrong direction - debt keeps increasing, which is why we can't just keep giving away more free stuff.  This is why I keep saying we can't afford it.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: redbirdfan on July 08, 2019, 06:07:10 PM
I don't necessarily have a problem with the "free stuff."  Societies choose what they value through public policy.  I lived in Germany for a couple of years.  Taxes were high but they covered almost all of tuition, medical care, etc.  I think it is fine that countries use tax revenue for the health and education of its citizens.  Personally, I would rather fight about what is covered on the margins than for everyone to plan their career longevity based on the availability of health care.  The problem to me isn't with the notion of government funded health care and education...the problem is getting from point A (our status quo) to point B.  You can't have "democratic socialist" taxes and capitalist debt.  Having said that, you shouldn't have to mortgage your future to attend college.  You shouldn't have to risk bankruptcy due to an illness/medical event.  That shouldn't be controversial as a starting point. 

I believe it is a (historically) conservative position to separate health coverage from employment.  I haven't heard of any conservatives in countries with a national health care system calling for its abolition.  If we could implement it without wreaking havoc, and without the complete disregard of our current system,  it would allow a significant amount of people 55+ to retire with peace of mind and it would allow a significant amount of people to fully run with their entrepreneurial ideas.  Then again, I would also separate the amount of retirement savings from specific jobs.  It's crazy to me that you can save anywhere from $6k to $65k in tax-deferred space based on what your employer allows.   I don't know how to get from where we are to where the rest of the western world is, but I'm open to moving us in that direction in a non-disruptive and sustainable way. 

The country seems to be too polarized and too eager to divide things in terms of "us" and "them" to accomplish anything meaningful.  Republicans have flipped on the ACA which started out as a conservative concept.  Democrats are racing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  We've officially reached a point at which we'd rather have the political football than a solution.   
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: pecunia on July 08, 2019, 06:57:09 PM
Should taxes already be higher just to pay off what we've already spent?  I ten to forego immediate gratification.  Should Uncle Sam be doing some of the same?

They would need to be a lot higher for a long time to pay off what we've already spent (borrowed).  But, we're still headed in the wrong direction - debt keeps increasing, which is why we can't just keep giving away more free stuff.  This is why I keep saying we can't afford it.

I think some of that "free" stuff is actually an investment.  Health Care takes up about 17 percent of the United States GDP.  If this was changed to be more like other countries there would be a difference that would free up a lot of money to pay off debt or pay for other Social Services by some mechanism I won't propose.  Besides, without the burden of health care, our businesses should be more competitive.

Education is an investment in the future.  It makes people more competitive with the people in other lands who seem to have awesome education these days.

Some of the stuff seems far out and will never pass so I don't worry about it.  For example, the idea of cash reparations.  I am in favor of helping disadvantaged neighborhoods with decent schools, police protection, etc.  Once again, this is an investment in the future.

We can't ever pay back those debts if the country can't sell goods and services to bring in currency.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on July 08, 2019, 07:11:38 PM
Swalwell dropped out.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 08, 2019, 07:34:35 PM
Swalwell dropped out.

Good riddance.

Current front runners and national poll average (ref. NY Times)  2%+

Joe Biden                26%
Bernie Sanders       16%
Kamala Harris          14%
Elizabeth Warren    13%
Pete Buttigieg           4%   
Beto OíRourke           2%   
Cory Booker              2%
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on July 08, 2019, 08:27:35 PM
Swalwell dropped out.

Good riddens.

Current front runners and national poll average (ref. NY Times)  2%+

Joe Biden                26%
Bernie Sanders       16%
Kamala Harris          14%
Elizabeth Warren    13%
Pete Buttigieg           4%   
Beto OíRourke           2%   
Cory Booker              2%

*riddance
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 08, 2019, 09:16:31 PM
*riddance

Oops.  Corrected.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: pecunia on July 09, 2019, 04:56:10 AM
Didn't remember who he was.  Then I saw that he was the "pass the torch" guy.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/452067-biden-commends-swalwell-after-the-lawmaker-exits-2020-race (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/452067-biden-commends-swalwell-after-the-lawmaker-exits-2020-race)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Lmoot on July 09, 2019, 06:41:18 AM
I think Mayor Pete put a hex on him when he gave him that stare down during the debate.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Gin1984 on July 09, 2019, 06:56:29 AM

Saw on MTP this morning that Biden is still doing the best by far in polls showing candidates going head to head against Trump.  The other top candidates are within the margin of error, either tied or slightly leading Trump.

Harris got all over Biden about his busing views, and ironically, she has since admitted she has the same viewpoint on it.
Where have you seen that?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Gin1984 on July 09, 2019, 06:58:54 AM
I don't necessarily have a problem with the "free stuff."  Societies choose what they value through public policy.  I lived in Germany for a couple of years.  Taxes were high but they covered almost all of tuition, medical care, etc.  I think it is fine that countries use tax revenue for the health and education of its citizens.  Personally, I would rather fight about what is covered on the margins than for everyone to plan their career longevity based on the availability of health care.  The problem to me isn't with the notion of government funded health care and education...the problem is getting from point A (our status quo) to point B.  You can't have "democratic socialist" taxes and capitalist debt.  Having said that, you shouldn't have to mortgage your future to attend college.  You shouldn't have to risk bankruptcy due to an illness/medical event.  That shouldn't be controversial as a starting point. 

I believe it is a (historically) conservative position to separate health coverage from employment.  I haven't heard of any conservatives in countries with a national health care system calling for its abolition.  If we could implement it without wreaking havoc, and without the complete disregard of our current system,  it would allow a significant amount of people 55+ to retire with peace of mind and it would allow a significant amount of people to fully run with their entrepreneurial ideas.  Then again, I would also separate the amount of retirement savings from specific jobs.  It's crazy to me that you can save anywhere from $6k to $65k in tax-deferred space based on what your employer allows.   I don't know how to get from where we are to where the rest of the western world is, but I'm open to moving us in that direction in a non-disruptive and sustainable way. 

The country seems to be too polarized and too eager to divide things in terms of "us" and "them" to accomplish anything meaningful.  Republicans have flipped on the ACA which started out as a conservative concept.  Democrats are racing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  We've officially reached a point at which we'd rather have the political football than a solution.
Can you elaborate on what you mean here?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Samuel on July 09, 2019, 08:34:33 AM
The country seems to be too polarized and too eager to divide things in terms of "us" and "them" to accomplish anything meaningful.  Republicans have flipped on the ACA which started out as a conservative concept.  Democrats are racing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  We've officially reached a point at which we'd rather have the political football than a solution.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

+1 to everything. I too long for sensible discussions, compromise, and incremental change. The proposed "solutions" just get more and more extreme when no one can think past the next election and all we have are A or B choices.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Psychstache on July 09, 2019, 10:59:35 AM
The country seems to be too polarized and too eager to divide things in terms of "us" and "them" to accomplish anything meaningful.  Republicans have flipped on the ACA which started out as a conservative concept.  Democrats are racing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  We've officially reached a point at which we'd rather have the political football than a solution.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

+1 to everything. I too long for sensible discussions, compromise, and incremental change. The proposed "solutions" just get more and more extreme when no one can think past the next election and all we have are A or B choices.

Can you identify a time when this actually happened consistently? Or is it more a general wish?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Samuel on July 09, 2019, 11:31:58 AM
The country seems to be too polarized and too eager to divide things in terms of "us" and "them" to accomplish anything meaningful.  Republicans have flipped on the ACA which started out as a conservative concept.  Democrats are racing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  We've officially reached a point at which we'd rather have the political football than a solution.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

+1 to everything. I too long for sensible discussions, compromise, and incremental change. The proposed "solutions" just get more and more extreme when no one can think past the next election and all we have are A or B choices.

Can you identify a time when this actually happened consistently? Or is it more a general wish?

It's definitely a bit of wishful thinking, but not that long ago it was much more common for legislation to pass with a mixture of D and R votes. Now everything is party line votes + a handful of electorally vulnerable opponents, and then sweeping executive orders (and court battles) when Congress can't find any common ground and fail to pass even modest compromises.

Visualized in 80 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: madgeylou on July 09, 2019, 12:37:56 PM
The country seems to be too polarized and too eager to divide things in terms of "us" and "them" to accomplish anything meaningful.  Republicans have flipped on the ACA which started out as a conservative concept.  Democrats are racing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  We've officially reached a point at which we'd rather have the political football than a solution.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

+1 to everything. I too long for sensible discussions, compromise, and incremental change. The proposed "solutions" just get more and more extreme when no one can think past the next election and all we have are A or B choices.

Can you identify a time when this actually happened consistently? Or is it more a general wish?

It's definitely a bit of wishful thinking, but not that long ago it was much more common for legislation to pass with a mixture of D and R votes. Now everything is party line votes + a handful of electorally vulnerable opponents, and then sweeping executive orders (and court battles) when Congress can't find any common ground and fail to pass even modest compromises.

Visualized in 80 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM)

Correct. Deepest thanks to Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell, who have been the primary architects and executioners of hyper-partisan policy for the last few decades.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 09, 2019, 04:33:34 PM

Saw on MTP this morning that Biden is still doing the best by far in polls showing candidates going head to head against Trump.  The other top candidates are within the margin of error, either tied or slightly leading Trump.

Harris got all over Biden about his busing views, and ironically, she has since admitted she has the same viewpoint on it.
Where have you seen that?

I saw that multiple places, can't remember where exactly, so I searched just now to find some references:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-says-kamala-harris-hatched-political-ploy-to-smear-joe-biden-on-race

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-laughs-at-kamala-harris-for-her-shift-on-busing-our-positions-arent-any-different

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-crushed-joe-biden-on-busing-at-the-debate-heres-why-shes-walking-it-back?

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on July 10, 2019, 12:08:14 AM
I'm not a Kamala apologist, but the thing that bothered me about that exchange was how unprepared Biden seemed to be for it. All he had to do was explain that Black Americans were split on whether they wanted mandatory busing, or to point to some helpful legislation that he was able to pass by cooperating with Dixiecrats. But he couldn't seem to do it.

I think Kamala (and Booker, earlier) was genuinely aghast at the things Biden had been saying, like ďHe never called me 'boy,' he always called me 'son.'Ē  (of course Eastland wouldn't call Biden 'boy', why would he since they were the same race?) This was a chance to explain himself, but Biden missed the point entirely.

On another note from the debate, some have mentioned that they're worried that Warren isn't tough enough to take on Trump. Have a look at this article.  She has a record of being plenty tough-- at least to Democrats. 
https://www.thenation.com/article/warren-democrats-obama-president/


Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: SpeedReader on July 12, 2019, 09:35:31 PM

Saw on MTP this morning that Biden is still doing the best by far in polls showing candidates going head to head against Trump.  The other top candidates are within the margin of error, either tied or slightly leading Trump.

Harris got all over Biden about his busing views, and ironically, she has since admitted she has the same viewpoint on it.
Where have you seen that?

I saw that multiple places, can't remember where exactly, so I searched just now to find some references:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-says-kamala-harris-hatched-political-ploy-to-smear-joe-biden-on-race

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-laughs-at-kamala-harris-for-her-shift-on-busing-our-positions-arent-any-different

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-crushed-joe-biden-on-busing-at-the-debate-heres-why-shes-walking-it-back?

Sorry, but I can't accept Fox News as a legitimate source.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on July 12, 2019, 09:46:30 PM
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here? She has an interesting foreign policy position (basically a "Russian plant" source 1 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261), source 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFsmrfwGIv4))
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 12, 2019, 10:01:21 PM

Saw on MTP this morning that Biden is still doing the best by far in polls showing candidates going head to head against Trump.  The other top candidates are within the margin of error, either tied or slightly leading Trump.

Harris got all over Biden about his busing views, and ironically, she has since admitted she has the same viewpoint on it.
Where have you seen that?

I saw that multiple places, can't remember where exactly, so I searched just now to find some references:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-says-kamala-harris-hatched-political-ploy-to-smear-joe-biden-on-race

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-laughs-at-kamala-harris-for-her-shift-on-busing-our-positions-arent-any-different

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-crushed-joe-biden-on-busing-at-the-debate-heres-why-shes-walking-it-back?

Sorry, but I can't accept Fox News as a legitimate source.

That's funny, that's how I feel about msNBC.  However, I provided 3 different sources, so what are you complaining about?  And come to think of it, I didn't even post those for you, so I don't give a rat's a$$ what you consider legitimate.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 12, 2019, 10:06:02 PM
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on July 12, 2019, 10:52:27 PM
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.
I find her interesting in that she at least talks in terms of a Peter Zeihan-esque indifference to classical us foreign policy objectives. If she were to walk the walk, it would provide useful information. I am in favor of either ultra-hardliners like John Bolton running things (let's face it) or the opposite camp doing so. This in-between stuff is clouding the signal of what the world really needs from the US in terms of engagement (I suspect the world will turn to shit if the US backs down from its hegemonic position but am prepared to be proved wrong).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Gin1984 on July 13, 2019, 06:29:14 AM

Saw on MTP this morning that Biden is still doing the best by far in polls showing candidates going head to head against Trump.  The other top candidates are within the margin of error, either tied or slightly leading Trump.

Harris got all over Biden about his busing views, and ironically, she has since admitted she has the same viewpoint on it.
Where have you seen that?

I saw that multiple places, can't remember where exactly, so I searched just now to find some references:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-says-kamala-harris-hatched-political-ploy-to-smear-joe-biden-on-race

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-laughs-at-kamala-harris-for-her-shift-on-busing-our-positions-arent-any-different

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-crushed-joe-biden-on-busing-at-the-debate-heres-why-shes-walking-it-back?

Sorry, but I can't accept Fox News as a legitimate source.

That's funny, that's how I feel about msNBC.  However, I provided 3 different sources, so what are you complaining about?  And come to think of it, I didn't even post those for you, so I don't give a rat's a$$ what you consider legitimate.
Since you posted for me, I should say, I agree that Fox News is not a reputable source and I lean that way with daily beast. The only other link you posted (cbs) did not actually support your statement.  It had someone else saying Harris was walking back but no quotes from Harris, which you would expect if they had any.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIREstache on July 13, 2019, 08:47:37 AM

Saw on MTP this morning that Biden is still doing the best by far in polls showing candidates going head to head against Trump.  The other top candidates are within the margin of error, either tied or slightly leading Trump.

Harris got all over Biden about his busing views, and ironically, she has since admitted she has the same viewpoint on it.
Where have you seen that?

I saw that multiple places, can't remember where exactly, so I searched just now to find some references:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-says-kamala-harris-hatched-political-ploy-to-smear-joe-biden-on-race

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-laughs-at-kamala-harris-for-her-shift-on-busing-our-positions-arent-any-different

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-crushed-joe-biden-on-busing-at-the-debate-heres-why-shes-walking-it-back?

Sorry, but I can't accept Fox News as a legitimate source.

That's funny, that's how I feel about msNBC.  However, I provided 3 different sources, so what are you complaining about?  And come to think of it, I didn't even post those for you, so I don't give a rat's a$$ what you consider legitimate.
Since you posted for me, I should say, I agree that Fox News is not a reputable source and I lean that way with daily beast. The only other link you posted (cbs) did not actually support your statement.  It had someone else saying Harris was walking back but no quotes from Harris, which you would expect if they had any.

Take it or leave it.  Or actually put in a little of your own effort and do some of your own searches.  It's a fact.  FOX News is certainly reputable, and I provided other sources as well, which are all are correct.  Even Biden was laughing about it.  I know I originally saw it elsewhere, but I'm not going to keep providing references to someone who will just make excuses about references provided.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on July 17, 2019, 10:39:17 AM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on July 17, 2019, 10:52:33 AM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on July 17, 2019, 11:01:47 AM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: nick663 on July 17, 2019, 11:18:03 AM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on July 17, 2019, 11:51:43 AM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIPurpose on July 17, 2019, 12:02:37 PM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

What? Like I get being a bit nervous at certain left leaning policies, but student debt forgiveness is the hard one to swallow?

Not only is it being proposed to be paid by a trading fee, but multiple academic studies show that it would have almost no effect on debt, interest rates, and would be a mild economic multiplier. Plus the only thing that is keep the US economy afloat right now is advanced education and its related labor. So I don't see how you don't do this. I also paid off all my loans. I don't care. No one needs to be 300k in debt. You can say it was consenting adults. Yeah but it's also protected from bankruptcy, and backed by nothing.

Not only that, but free college would create a reasonable limit to the price of college instead of the runaway tuition inflation we've been seeing.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on July 17, 2019, 12:03:56 PM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.

And Trump was never going to get anything accomplished because he was politically naÔve....except he has. And each side, Republicans and Democrats haven't increased executive power to allow the president to do more and more. And Republicans won't obstruct judge nominations "causing" Democrats to escalate and use the nuclear option "causing" Republicans to use the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees in an ever increasing battle of escalation. So no, I'm not going to just assume that things are going to go as usual and everything will moderate out. To be frank, the arguments you're making are literally identical on the other side to the Trump arguments before he go elected - oh, don't worry, he's just pushing right, he'll come back to the center. Are we in a post-fact world that you so deride Trump for? These guys are the ones saying this is what they want or what they'll do. I'll take people at their word for what they want to do and vote on them with that as my backdrop.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Samuel on July 17, 2019, 12:07:32 PM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

I'm on record here as being pretty unhappy with the leftward lurch of the Democratic party. Partially because I'm not on board with some of the specifics proposals, partially because doubling down on the identity politics stuff makes for incredible brittle coalitions and is excellent troll food, but mainly because I don't think it's going to help them defeat Trump. Progressives see activating the left as the path to victory, not courting swing voters in the swing states. I think that is playing with fire. I see Trump and Trumpism as an existential threat to this county that must be rebuked. Trump is vulnerable, but I'm not at all convinced there are enough far left votes to be picked up in the swing states that matter to make up for the center right swing voters they're leaving behind. 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: wenchsenior on July 17, 2019, 12:24:19 PM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

I'm on record here as being pretty unhappy with the leftward lurch of the Democratic party. Partially because I'm not on board with some of the specifics proposals, partially because doubling down on the identity politics stuff makes for incredible brittle coalitions and is excellent troll food, but mainly because I don't think it's going to help them defeat Trump. Progressives see activating the left as the path to victory, not courting swing voters in the swing states. I think that is playing with fire. I see Trump and Trumpism as an existential threat to this county that must be rebuked. Trump is vulnerable, but I'm not at all convinced there are enough far left votes to be picked up in the swing states that matter to make up for the center right swing voters they're leaving behind.

Agree. 

It's predictable to have a big leftward swing in response to someone like Trump (similar to the Tea Party becoming a massive PITA for governing and for the GOP party leadership), but it makes center-leftist voters like myself very annoyed.  The only area I want to see a massive leftward swing is on climate change policy, and said leftward swing would have been considered mainstream center-left policy back in the 90s and 00s.

I've never voted for Republican candidate for president in my life, and I'm sure not going to start now that the party has gone bug-fucking insane and is led by someone who appears actively mentally ill.  I'm not 'scared' of the far-left policies, and none of them are likely to pass any time in the near future anyway, so that worry would be immaterial.  The GOP is going to hold the Senate the vast majority of the time into the foreseeable future. Not even slightly left-leaning policies are going to pass very often, for at least another decade.

So I'll vote for whichever candidate the Dems put up. And I happen to greatly admire Warren (from days long pre-dating her political career), even though I don't support many of her current policy proposals.  But the Dems should consider how many people there are out there like me, who have been consistently voting Dem for decades, but find the party itself frequently laughably short-sighted in their policy positioning and talking points.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: former player on July 17, 2019, 12:25:33 PM
Do we actually know that the Democratic party has lurched leftwards?  Some of the candidates are obviously further left, but there is no guarantee any of them will become the nominee and no guarantee that if any of them become the nominee they will stick with leftist policies either before or after election.

It's obviously fair to say that there is concern about the party going left, but I don't think you can say yet that it has.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: partgypsy on July 17, 2019, 12:36:31 PM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

I'm on record here as being pretty unhappy with the leftward lurch of the Democratic party. Partially because I'm not on board with some of the specifics proposals, partially because doubling down on the identity politics stuff makes for incredible brittle coalitions and is excellent troll food, but mainly because I don't think it's going to help them defeat Trump. Progressives see activating the left as the path to victory, not courting swing voters in the swing states. I think that is playing with fire. I see Trump and Trumpism as an existential threat to this county that must be rebuked. Trump is vulnerable, but I'm not at all convinced there are enough far left votes to be picked up in the swing states that matter to make up for the center right swing voters they're leaving behind.

Agree. 

It's predictable to have a big leftward swing in response to someone like Trump (similar to the Tea Party becoming a massive PITA for governing and for the GOP party leadership), but it makes center-leftist voters like myself very annoyed.  The only area I want to see a massive leftward swing is on climate change policy, and said leftward swing would have been considered mainstream center-left policy back in the 90s and 00s.

I've never voted for Republican candidate for president in my life, and I'm sure not going to start now that the party has gone bug-fucking insane and is led by someone who appears actively mentally ill.  I'm not 'scared' of the far-left policies, and none of them are likely to pass any time in the near future anyway, so that worry would be immaterial.  The GOP is going to hold the Senate the vast majority of the time into the foreseeable future. Not even slightly left-leaning policies are going to pass very often, for at least another decade.

So I'll vote for whichever candidate the Dems put up. And I happen to greatly admire Warren (from days long pre-dating her political career), even though I don't support many of her current policy proposals.  But the Dems should consider how many people there are out there like me, who have been consistently voting Dem for decades, but find the party itself frequently laughably short-sighted in their policy positioning and talking points.

Yes I see a lot in democratic party platforms, of basically promising too much. Doing the number crunching they don't have the senate numbers to pass anything remotely liberal. What are my top 3? climate change, universal health coverage, and Roe versus Wade (I have two daughters and don't need them to grow up in some kind of sharia law environment where they do not have agency over their own bodies).

I do like that many of the Democratic candidates are stating that climate change is a real problem, both environmentally, economically, and human quality of life, that they will have a national policy addressing climate change and we will re-sign the Paris Agreement (along with every other civilized country). I hope that all the Republican candidates state the same. It should be a minimum standard. So I do know with reasonable certainty anyone who is elected on the Democratic side will return us to sanity in this respect, while Republican side will continue to mirror what the Tobacco companies did for a couple decades which is lie and dissemble to constituents and continue to count the money from lobbyists and their donors.     
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on July 17, 2019, 12:45:26 PM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.

And Trump was never going to get anything accomplished because he was politically naÔve....except he has. And each side, Republicans and Democrats haven't increased executive power to allow the president to do more and more. And Republicans won't obstruct judge nominations "causing" Democrats to escalate and use the nuclear option "causing" Republicans to use the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees in an ever increasing battle of escalation. So no, I'm not going to just assume that things are going to go as usual and everything will moderate out. To be frank, the arguments you're making are literally identical on the other side to the Trump arguments before he go elected - oh, don't worry, he's just pushing right, he'll come back to the center. Are we in a post-fact world that you so deride Trump for? These guys are the ones saying this is what they want or what they'll do. I'll take people at their word for what they want to do and vote on them with that as my backdrop.

No. That is not the argument I am making at all. I'm not saying that a Warren or a Sanders would come back to the center. I'm saying they do not create legislation. And I very much doubt that they would rule by executive order alone as Trump has done. Because they are not Trump. And their party is not the Republican party. I do not see any scenario where a Warren or a Sanders says, "I am signing an executive order to eliminate all student loan debt for (insert ridiculously transparent reach of an argument here.)"

Yes, they are saying that's what they want to do. But they still have some respect for our process, and our system. Unlike the current occupant.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: libertarian4321 on July 17, 2019, 01:51:47 PM
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: nick663 on July 17, 2019, 02:03:24 PM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

What? Like I get being a bit nervous at certain left leaning policies, but student debt forgiveness is the hard one to swallow?

Not only is it being proposed to be paid by a trading fee, but multiple academic studies show that it would have almost no effect on debt, interest rates, and would be a mild economic multiplier. Plus the only thing that is keep the US economy afloat right now is advanced education and its related labor. So I don't see how you don't do this. I also paid off all my loans. I don't care. No one needs to be 300k in debt. You can say it was consenting adults. Yeah but it's also protected from bankruptcy, and backed by nothing.

Not only that, but free college would create a reasonable limit to the price of college instead of the runaway tuition inflation we've been seeing.
Care to link some of those studies?  I wasn't aware that anyone had analyzed Warren's student loan plan and would be more than interested to learn.

Tuition free college is a separate discussion and something I'm much more ok with.  I was speaking only about student loan foregiveness in my post.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: partgypsy on July 17, 2019, 02:09:29 PM
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.

Nah there is no one the Democratic party can nominate that will make Trump look reasonable.

What do you think of Klobach? I know she is not in the lead but she strikes me as a pragmatist. I also like Yang as well. Honestly while the ubi sounds crazy, it is the same price or less than our patchwork of social networks, with much less beuracratic headaches and decisions.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIPurpose on July 17, 2019, 02:18:06 PM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

What? Like I get being a bit nervous at certain left leaning policies, but student debt forgiveness is the hard one to swallow?

Not only is it being proposed to be paid by a trading fee, but multiple academic studies show that it would have almost no effect on debt, interest rates, and would be a mild economic multiplier. Plus the only thing that is keep the US economy afloat right now is advanced education and its related labor. So I don't see how you don't do this. I also paid off all my loans. I don't care. No one needs to be 300k in debt. You can say it was consenting adults. Yeah but it's also protected from bankruptcy, and backed by nothing.

Not only that, but free college would create a reasonable limit to the price of college instead of the runaway tuition inflation we've been seeing.
Care to link some of those studies?  I wasn't aware that anyone had analyzed Warren's student loan plan and would be more than interested to learn.

Tuition free college is a separate discussion and something I'm much more ok with.  I was speaking only about student loan foregiveness in my post.

http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/the-macroeconomic-effects-of-student-debt-cancellation (http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/the-macroeconomic-effects-of-student-debt-cancellation)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIPurpose on July 17, 2019, 02:25:26 PM
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.

Nah there is no one the Democratic party can nominate that will make Trump look reasonable.

What do you think of Klobach? I know she is not in the lead but she strikes me as a pragmatist. I also like Yang as well. Honestly while the ubi sounds crazy, it is the same price or less than our patchwork of social networks, with much less beuracratic headaches and decisions.

What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala. These people will make it sound as if they're planning on voting for them and then 3 weeks before the election will come up with some rationalization as to why they're going to vote for Trump or throw away their vote on McAffee or whoever the libertarian is *shudders at thought of Austin Petersen*

Nope, all these people who think they know that the only way to PA or WI is by running some neoliberal is complete hogwash to me. There are enough people who are willing to vote Democrat to win a majority in all federal elections. It only takes getting the vote out. So no, someone boring like Biden isn't going to do it. Kamala is a better choice for the neoliberals. But Bernie is exactly the person who attracts the rural white vote.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on July 17, 2019, 02:56:30 PM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.

And Trump was never going to get anything accomplished because he was politically naÔve....except he has. And each side, Republicans and Democrats haven't increased executive power to allow the president to do more and more. And Republicans won't obstruct judge nominations "causing" Democrats to escalate and use the nuclear option "causing" Republicans to use the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees in an ever increasing battle of escalation. So no, I'm not going to just assume that things are going to go as usual and everything will moderate out. To be frank, the arguments you're making are literally identical on the other side to the Trump arguments before he go elected - oh, don't worry, he's just pushing right, he'll come back to the center. Are we in a post-fact world that you so deride Trump for? These guys are the ones saying this is what they want or what they'll do. I'll take people at their word for what they want to do and vote on them with that as my backdrop.

No. That is not the argument I am making at all. I'm not saying that a Warren or a Sanders would come back to the center. I'm saying they do not create legislation. And I very much doubt that they would rule by executive order alone as Trump has done. Because they are not Trump. And their party is not the Republican party. I do not see any scenario where a Warren or a Sanders says, "I am signing an executive order to eliminate all student loan debt for (insert ridiculously transparent reach of an argument here.)"

Yes, they are saying that's what they want to do. But they still have some respect for our process, and our system. Unlike the current occupant.

I guess the Democrat candidates are saying we want to do this when Trump said we will do this more often, so there's that. Otherwise, I don't know how you think your argument is any different. Again, people said, don't worry, let's elect Trump. He'll pull back to the center. He'll be regulated in by congress. He won't be able to accomplish any of these radical things he's saying. How is what you're saying any different - other than you saying that they won't do what Trump did? If that's the only distinction, it doesn't hold enough water with me. Again, Democrat presidents have been getting more free with doing the "unthinkable" breaking with tradition, taking more executive power recently. Shoot, Obama's drone attacks killing citizens overseas without a trial is right up there with most of what Trump's done, in my book (granted that's one thing versus a bunch of Trump things).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on July 17, 2019, 03:01:49 PM
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.

Nah there is no one the Democratic party can nominate that will make Trump look reasonable.

What do you think of Klobach? I know she is not in the lead but she strikes me as a pragmatist. I also like Yang as well. Honestly while the ubi sounds crazy, it is the same price or less than our patchwork of social networks, with much less beuracratic headaches and decisions.

What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala. These people will make it sound as if they're planning on voting for them and then 3 weeks before the election will come up with some rationalization as to why they're going to vote for Trump or throw away their vote on McAffee or whoever the libertarian is *shudders at thought of Austin Petersen*

Nope, all these people who think they know that the only way to PA or WI is by running some neoliberal is complete hogwash to me. There are enough people who are willing to vote Democrat to win a majority in all federal elections. It only takes getting the vote out. So no, someone boring like Biden isn't going to do it. Kamala is a better choice for the neoliberals. But Bernie is exactly the person who attracts the rural white vote.

That's a jerky thing to say. You don't know what I'm going to do. I did not vote for Trump last time. I'm explaining legitimate concerns I have with far left candidates. I'll generalize now to join in with your generalizations, I guess - liberals in this thread seem to act like I should just ignore what people are actually saying and go by what they assume will happen to the candidate's beliefs when they become president. Well listen, it's a lot easier to say that to someone else when you actually want their full proposals but will settle for compromised proposals than when you are on the other side of things. To vote for a Democrat, even a moderate one, would be voting against issues I am very seriously vested in to get Trump out. I'm saying it's a lot easier for me to do that when people aren't going even further left.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on July 17, 2019, 03:10:04 PM
From someone who would potentially vote for a Democratic candidate if they weren't too far left, a moderate like Pete would be nice. From the outside looking in, it feels like the Trump backlash is causing a race to the left with extreme fervor...let's swallow the elephant whole - universal healthcare, reparations, free college and loan forgiveness, etc - let's do it ALL. The free college/loan forgiveness seems like icing on the cake for everything. At least with universal healthcare you can point to high American costs and deficiencies, as problems. High college costs are freaking red meat for the conservative side on the problems of government interference in private areas - college costs have sky rocketed at least in part because the government meddled helping subsidize student loans, contributing to the expectation that everyone go to college regardless of whether or not it was a good idea (because hey, now they can "afford" it) and then screwing them over on the back end by the restrictions on bankruptcy not forgiving student loans - so let's do more government intervention and make it free...yay.... Trump's pulled the pendulum really far, and it seems like everyone on the Democratic side is trying to see how far they can pull it back. Not very exciting for me...

To be honest, when I see people freaking out candidates that have more left-leaning policy ideas instead of being smack dab in the middle, I find it strange how much fear their is in their reactions. I mean, the president isn't a dictator (present occupant notwithstanding). Congress makes the laws, and the president under normal circumstances does not govern by fiat. A president still has to work with the legislative branch to craft actual policy. So it's not like electing an Elizabeth Warren will immediately mean all college is free and single-payer health care becomes the law of the land the day after inauguration. In reality, what would happen, if anything, would be a months-long process of negotiation and compromise, resulting in moderate reforms.

The problems cited by the Democratic candidates are real, actual problems that need our attention. Four more years of Trump just means four more years of letting them get worse.

I didn't think that I came across as afraid or that I was freaking out. I'm not afraid of their policies, nor am I freaking out about them. I also don't expect them to be smack dab in the middle. This is much farther, though, than the normal level of let's go left/right and then moderate for the main election, in my opinion. I understand that things typically moderate, and that they're very unlikely to get all of this stuff to pass. I'm also not going to vote for Trump, no matter what. I'm just giving a perspective of one person who fits into the "might vote for a Democratic candidate" category and what is leading me to feel that I likely won't if things continue like they are.
You're not alone in that feeling.  I consider myself left of center and wouldn't vote for Trump but I'd have a really tough time voting for Warren or Sanders due to their student loan forgiveness plans alone.  It just doesn't make sense with the environmental, infrastructure, health care, national debt, and other issues the nation faces to spend a trillion dollars paying off debt that adults freely agreed to.

On top of that, once that lever is pulled on student loan foregiveness there is no going back.  At least Trump's crap tax plan can be reversed.

Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.

And Trump was never going to get anything accomplished because he was politically naÔve....except he has. And each side, Republicans and Democrats haven't increased executive power to allow the president to do more and more. And Republicans won't obstruct judge nominations "causing" Democrats to escalate and use the nuclear option "causing" Republicans to use the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees in an ever increasing battle of escalation. So no, I'm not going to just assume that things are going to go as usual and everything will moderate out. To be frank, the arguments you're making are literally identical on the other side to the Trump arguments before he go elected - oh, don't worry, he's just pushing right, he'll come back to the center. Are we in a post-fact world that you so deride Trump for? These guys are the ones saying this is what they want or what they'll do. I'll take people at their word for what they want to do and vote on them with that as my backdrop.

No. That is not the argument I am making at all. I'm not saying that a Warren or a Sanders would come back to the center. I'm saying they do not create legislation. And I very much doubt that they would rule by executive order alone as Trump has done. Because they are not Trump. And their party is not the Republican party. I do not see any scenario where a Warren or a Sanders says, "I am signing an executive order to eliminate all student loan debt for (insert ridiculously transparent reach of an argument here.)"

Yes, they are saying that's what they want to do. But they still have some respect for our process, and our system. Unlike the current occupant.

I guess the Democrat candidates are saying we want to do this when Trump said we will do this more often, so there's that. Otherwise, I don't know how you think your argument is any different. Again, people said, don't worry, let's elect Trump. He'll pull back to the center.

1) To repeat, I am not saying that a Bernie or a Warren will pull back to the center. I do not think they would.

He'll be regulated in by congress. He won't be able to accomplish any of these radical things he's saying. How is what you're saying any different - other than you saying that they won't do what Trump did?

2) To repeat, Trump is enabled by a GOP of people who don't dare stand up to him -- but more importantly, he does pretty much everything by executive order. I do not think there is any reason any of the Democratic candidates would do that. Because Trump is in a class by himself in this regard. There is almost no reason to believe any other candidate of either party would do it. I also do not believe the Democrats would allow it even if they were in full control. Which they will not be. (Though I grant you that going forward, I'm pretty sure the next GOP president will have quite an incentive to do the same thing as Trump, because the GOP will likely allow it from a president in their own party.)

If that's the only distinction, it doesn't hold enough water with me. Again, Democrat presidents have been getting more free with doing the "unthinkable" breaking with tradition, taking more executive power recently. Shoot, Obama's drone attacks killing citizens overseas without a trial is right up there with most of what Trump's done, in my book (granted that's one thing versus a bunch of Trump things).

I would like for you to please show me how the Democrat presidents have been "getting more free with" taking more executive power recently. In fact, the trend seems to show rather less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Roland of Gilead on July 17, 2019, 03:11:19 PM
Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.

Is that the same never as the never will ACA be passed and never will Trump be elected as president?

I do not think this word means what you think it means.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on July 17, 2019, 03:12:57 PM
Except it will never be pulled. As I said above. Because there's no way Congress will ever vote for it.

Is that the same never as the never will ACA be passed and never will Trump be elected as president?

I do not think this word means what you think it means.

I never said the ACA will never be passed, and I never said Trump will never be elected as president.

Why are you bringing those up as if I did?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIPurpose on July 17, 2019, 03:23:15 PM
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.

Nah there is no one the Democratic party can nominate that will make Trump look reasonable.

What do you think of Klobach? I know she is not in the lead but she strikes me as a pragmatist. I also like Yang as well. Honestly while the ubi sounds crazy, it is the same price or less than our patchwork of social networks, with much less beuracratic headaches and decisions.

What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala. These people will make it sound as if they're planning on voting for them and then 3 weeks before the election will come up with some rationalization as to why they're going to vote for Trump or throw away their vote on McAffee or whoever the libertarian is *shudders at thought of Austin Petersen*

Nope, all these people who think they know that the only way to PA or WI is by running some neoliberal is complete hogwash to me. There are enough people who are willing to vote Democrat to win a majority in all federal elections. It only takes getting the vote out. So no, someone boring like Biden isn't going to do it. Kamala is a better choice for the neoliberals. But Bernie is exactly the person who attracts the rural white vote.

That's a jerky thing to say. You don't know what I'm going to do. I did not vote for Trump last time. I'm explaining legitimate concerns I have with far left candidates. I'll generalize now to join in with your generalizations, I guess - liberals in this thread seem to act like I should just ignore what people are actually saying and go by what they assume will happen to the candidate's beliefs when they become president. Well listen, it's a lot easier to say that to someone else when you actually want their full proposals but will settle for compromised proposals than when you are on the other side of things. To vote for a Democrat, even a moderate one, would be voting against issues I am very seriously vested in to get Trump out. I'm saying it's a lot easier for me to do that when people aren't going even further left.

Uhh if you took that personally, that's on you. Cause you aren't even in that message chain.

The difference between Trump and a Biden/Bernie/ basically anyone else, is that the Dem candidates have read the constitution. Heck Obama was a constitutional scholar. But if you want a president that will be the most reserved, and undo some of the dictatorial powers that basically Reagan onward have been adding to, Bernie is your man. Bernie is one of the few that voted not to go to war. Bernie has been a long time Senator, and knows that there is far more power in long-term legislation than anything he can do with executive power.

If congress passes a student debt relief bill, then what? That just means you're in the minority opinion of the general populace. When looking for a president, the real power they have is:

1. who will they appoint to their cabinet and courts
2. how will they behave on the international stage
3. do they have the temperament for foreign negotiations
4. do they respect the constitution and have a willingness to execute laws that they themselves may not even personally like.


Trump in my mind fails all these, a Warren, Bernie, Kamala, etc. all would make much better choices in these categories.

Legislation preferences and such is all fluff.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on July 17, 2019, 03:59:52 PM
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.

Nah there is no one the Democratic party can nominate that will make Trump look reasonable.

What do you think of Klobach? I know she is not in the lead but she strikes me as a pragmatist. I also like Yang as well. Honestly while the ubi sounds crazy, it is the same price or less than our patchwork of social networks, with much less beuracratic headaches and decisions.

What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala. These people will make it sound as if they're planning on voting for them and then 3 weeks before the election will come up with some rationalization as to why they're going to vote for Trump or throw away their vote on McAffee or whoever the libertarian is *shudders at thought of Austin Petersen*

Nope, all these people who think they know that the only way to PA or WI is by running some neoliberal is complete hogwash to me. There are enough people who are willing to vote Democrat to win a majority in all federal elections. It only takes getting the vote out. So no, someone boring like Biden isn't going to do it. Kamala is a better choice for the neoliberals. But Bernie is exactly the person who attracts the rural white vote.

That's a jerky thing to say. You don't know what I'm going to do. I did not vote for Trump last time. I'm explaining legitimate concerns I have with far left candidates. I'll generalize now to join in with your generalizations, I guess - liberals in this thread seem to act like I should just ignore what people are actually saying and go by what they assume will happen to the candidate's beliefs when they become president. Well listen, it's a lot easier to say that to someone else when you actually want their full proposals but will settle for compromised proposals than when you are on the other side of things. To vote for a Democrat, even a moderate one, would be voting against issues I am very seriously vested in to get Trump out. I'm saying it's a lot easier for me to do that when people aren't going even further left.

Uhh if you took that personally, that's on you. Cause you aren't even in that message chain.

The difference between Trump and a Biden/Bernie/ basically anyone else, is that the Dem candidates have read the constitution. Heck Obama was a constitutional scholar. But if you want a president that will be the most reserved, and undo some of the dictatorial powers that basically Reagan onward have been adding to, Bernie is your man. Bernie is one of the few that voted not to go to war. Bernie has been a long time Senator, and knows that there is far more power in long-term legislation than anything he can do with executive power.

If congress passes a student debt relief bill, then what? That just means you're in the minority opinion of the general populace. When looking for a president, the real power they have is:

1. who will they appoint to their cabinet and courts
2. how will they behave on the international stage
3. do they have the temperament for foreign negotiations
4. do they respect the constitution and have a willingness to execute laws that they themselves may not even personally like.


Trump in my mind fails all these, a Warren, Bernie, Kamala, etc. all would make much better choices in these categories.

Legislation preferences and such is all fluff.

Uhhh...if you don't want people to take it personally, perhaps you should say what you mean (see what you said bolded and underlined above). You didn't say people in this message chain or conservatives in general. You specifically called out conservatives in this thread. This thread generally means this topic on the message board as best as I understand it. Furthermore, I am the one who specifically started this latest round of talks, as a conservative who is talking about voting for a moderate, so it's even less of a stretch to feel included in your generalization. Again, perhaps you should say what you mean or even better, don't generalize and don't assume what posters are actually going to do and accuse them of being disingenuous.

Since you didn't actually respond to what I said about why I feel that way, I'm not going to respond to yours except, it's certainly your prerogative to feel that "Legislation preferences and such is all fluff"...suffice it to say I don't feel that way.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: FIPurpose on July 17, 2019, 04:55:53 PM
Why no love (or hate) for Tulsi here?

She's in my top 3.  Liberals don't usually go for her because she's not offering a bunch of "free" stuff.

Tulsi Gabbard seems poised, intelligent, competent, and Presidential.  One of only a couple of Dems who aren't unhinged, doddering, or uncompromisingly radical (or some combination of the three).  She's probably the only Dem I'd actually vote for.

Andrew Yang seems sane, too.  And actually seems moderate in some ways, but that UBI thing is a bit much to swallow.

However, if the Dems nominate some extremist radical (Sanders, Warren, etc), I might vote for Trump as the comparatively "reasonable" alternative.  It takes a lot to make Trump look reasonable by comparison, but I have no doubt the Dems can pull it off.

If the Dems nominate someone who is just plain bad, but within the Overton window (Harris, Biden, etc), I'll just stay out of it and vote Libertarian.

Nah there is no one the Democratic party can nominate that will make Trump look reasonable.

What do you think of Klobach? I know she is not in the lead but she strikes me as a pragmatist. I also like Yang as well. Honestly while the ubi sounds crazy, it is the same price or less than our patchwork of social networks, with much less beuracratic headaches and decisions.

What I'm noticing are a bunch of conservatives in this thread and elsewhere on the internet that pretend like they're interested in a few of the candidates like Biden or Kamala. These people will make it sound as if they're planning on voting for them and then 3 weeks before the election will come up with some rationalization as to why they're going to vote for Trump or throw away their vote on McAffee or whoever the libertarian is *shudders at thought of Austin Petersen*

Nope, all these people who think they know that the only way to PA or WI is by running some neoliberal is complete hogwash to me. There are enough people who are willing to vote Democrat to win a majority in all federal elections. It only takes getting the vote out. So no, someone boring like Biden isn't going to do it. Kamala is a better choice for the neoliberals. But Bernie is exactly the person who attracts the rural white vote.

That's a jerky thing to say. You don't know what I'm going to do. I did not vote for Trump last time. I'm explaining legitimate concerns I have with far left candidates. I'll generalize now to join in with your generalizations, I guess - liberals in this thread seem to act like I should just ignore what people are actually saying and go by what they assume will happen to the candidate's beliefs when they become president. Well listen, it's a lot easier to say that to someone else when you actually want their full proposals but will settle for compromised proposals than when you are on the other side of things. To vote for a Democrat, even a moderate one, would be voting against issues I am very seriously vested in to get Trump out. I'm saying it's a lot easier for me to do that when people aren't going even further left.

Uhh if you took that personally, that's on you. Cause you aren't even in that message chain.

The difference between Trump and a Biden/Bernie/ basically anyone else, is that the Dem candidates have read the constitution. Heck Obama was a constitutional scholar. But if you want a president that will be the most reserved, and undo some of the dictatorial powers that basically Reagan onward have been adding to, Bernie is your man. Bernie is one of the few that voted not to go to war. Bernie has been a long time Senator, and knows that there is far more power in long-term legislation than anything he can do with executive power.

If congress passes a student debt relief bill, then what? That just means you're in the minority opinion of the general populace. When looking for a president, the real power they have is:

1. who will they appoint to their cabinet and courts
2. how will they behave on the international stage
3. do they have the temperament for foreign negotiations
4. do they respect the constitution and have a willingness to execute laws that they themselves may not even personally like.


Trump in my mind fails all these, a Warren, Bernie, Kamala, etc. all would make much better choices in these categories.

Legislation preferences and such is all fluff.

Uhhh...if you don't want people to take it personally, perhaps you should say what you mean (see what you said bolded and underlined above). You didn't say people in this message chain or conservatives in general. You specifically called out conservatives in this thread. This thread generally means this topic on the message board as best as I understand it. Furthermore, I am the one who specifically started this latest round of talks, as a conservative who is talking about voting for a moderate, so it's even less of a stretch to feel included in your generalization. Again, perhaps you should say what you mean or even better, don&#