Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 235609 times)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4965
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2100 on: February 06, 2020, 11:13:40 AM »
I mean, does America even WANT a smart Prez/VP?

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

Yeah, I think Democrats want a smart president.

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

LOL.

W was a legacy student with a C average.

Trump transferred to Wharton. He interviewed with an admissions officer who was a good friend of his father's. And at the time, 1966, Wharton admitted about half of its applicants. And we don't know what his grades were like, because he had his lawyers threaten the schools not to release the records.



skp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • Location: oh
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2101 on: February 06, 2020, 11:27:37 AM »
I mean, does America even WANT a smart Prez/VP?

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

Yeah, I think Democrats want a smart president.

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

LOL.

W was a legacy student with a C average.

Trump transferred to Wharton. He interviewed with an admissions officer who was a good friend of his father's. And at the time, 1966, Wharton admitted about half of its applicants. And we don't know what his grades were like, because he had his lawyers threaten the schools not to release the records.



My point is where someone goes to school doesn't mean squat.  Judging someone on where they went to school sounds like an elitist idea (and added POSSIBLY inaccurate) to me.  Unless you think just because you graduated from The Ohio State University you are an idiot.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4965
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2102 on: February 06, 2020, 11:34:38 AM »
I mean, does America even WANT a smart Prez/VP?

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

Yeah, I think Democrats want a smart president.

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

LOL.

W was a legacy student with a C average.

Trump transferred to Wharton. He interviewed with an admissions officer who was a good friend of his father's. And at the time, 1966, Wharton admitted about half of its applicants. And we don't know what his grades were like, because he had his lawyers threaten the schools not to release the records.



My point is where someone goes to school doesn't mean squat.  Judging someone on where they went to school sounds like an elitist idea (and added POSSIBLY inaccurate) to me.  Unless you think just because you graduated from The Ohio State University you are an idiot.

It doesn't mean everything, no. But basically, aren't you judging W and Trump for being elitist? Because if it meant nothing, W and Trump wouldn't have bothered to get into those schools to begin with.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15253
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2103 on: February 06, 2020, 11:36:58 AM »
I'd argue that we do know a lot about Trump's grades.  People who get great grades don't often threaten to sue the school if that info ever gets out.  :P

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4965
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2104 on: February 06, 2020, 11:39:09 AM »
I'd argue that we do know a lot about Trump's grades.  People who get great grades don't often threaten to sue the school if that info ever gets out.  :P

Yep. The one thing we know about Trump is, if there is any way he can spin anything as making him look good, he will throw it out there, front and center, for everyone to see.

skp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • Location: oh
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2105 on: February 06, 2020, 11:49:44 AM »
Regarding the intelligence of a candidate, just so you know how this self described moderate republican would chose based on this criteria... I recently took a survey regarding which characteristic of a president is most important to me.  I can't remember all the characteristics listed but there were choices like integrity, vision.  I chose.  COMMON SENSE.  So maybe your right.  Maybe republicans (at least this republican) don't vote based solely on intelligence.  And I REALLY don't vote for a president based on where they went to college.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4965
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2106 on: February 06, 2020, 11:51:46 AM »
Regarding the intelligence of a candidate, just so you know how this self described moderate republican would chose based on this criteria... I recently took a survey regarding which characteristic of a president is most important to me.  I can't remember all the characteristics listed but there were choices like integrity, vision.  I chose.  COMMON SENSE.  So maybe your right.  Maybe republicans (at least this republican) don't vote based solely on intelligence.  And I REALLY don't vote for a president based on where they went to college.

That is fine.

But I just want to point out, you were the one who brought up the marker of the school these candidates went to as a sign of whether Trump and Bush were as intelligent as Obama.

eljefe-speaks

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2107 on: February 06, 2020, 03:06:23 PM »
My point is where someone goes to school doesn't mean squat.

You're getting open-heart surgery. You can choose between two doctors. The ONLY thing you know about them is where they each went to med school. One went to Harvard. The other went to Larry B. Shithole University. This doesn't mean squat to you?

skp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • Location: oh
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2108 on: February 06, 2020, 03:48:09 PM »
My point is where someone goes to school doesn't mean squat.

You're getting open-heart surgery. You can choose between two doctors. The ONLY thing you know about them is where they each went to med school. One went to Harvard. The other went to Larry B. Shithole University. This doesn't mean squat to you?

Well. In a way yes. I wouldn't have surgery based JUST on where someone went to med school.  I would investigate further.   If I was going to have open heart surgery, yes I would consider where they went to college.  But most importantly I'd be concerned about what is there complication rate and what is there reputation in the community.  How many open heart surgeries have they done.
This reminds me of the story about Buttigieg.  He had a voter in the Iowa caucus who wanted to remove his vote because he found out he had a domestic partner.  How much research did this voter actually do before he voted for the guy.   

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2109 on: February 06, 2020, 03:56:09 PM »

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

Cogent post. Yes, if the Democratic Party wants to win it will need to rally its own base and persuade some of those who voted for him to not do so this time. If the Gallup polls the other day are to be believed, and I have no particular reason to doubt them, then it seems that they’re accomplishing the exact opposite. President Trump has a 94% approval rating amongst Republicans. I guess that impeachment thing didn’t win over many hearts and minds.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2110 on: February 06, 2020, 04:24:55 PM »
I mean, does America even WANT a smart Prez/VP?

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

Yeah, I think Democrats want a smart president.

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

It less about going to school and more about how the person carries themselves and the knowledge they bring to the table on various foreign and domestic topics. The prior run of Democratic candidates that have held the presidency have been very strong on this point. Both Clinton and Obama were lawyers, so they drill down on their topics and come with strong technical arguments. Whether you agree with them or not is besides the point. I pretty thoroughly dislike the brand of politics that someone like Ted Cruz brings to the table, but he has well thought out arguments when he debates and he is focused on technical details.

So by smart, I think what most people mean, is highly educated and professional. Someone who is very detail oriented and hands on with their policy. What school you went to is besides the point. Other than most candidates regardless of professional status went to ivy league schools which is what got them the connections they needed to dive into politics or was a result of prior money and connections. I don't think too many people would argue the merit was the primary reason Trump or Bush went to prestigious schools. Where as Obama and Clinton both had more humble beginnings and had to get their spot on merit.

While Trump is clearly a moron, it may be a bit of a stretch to say Bush was just as bad. He definitely wasn't of the same intensely professional caliber of Obama and Clinton. He had a more relaxed and lose style. But while Bush is probably reasonably intelligent he is not a hardcore academic type like Clinton, Obama or Warren.

To say the Republicans always put up idiots and Democrats always put up academic rock stars is not true historically. There have been intelligent Republican presidents like Nixon. There are sharp well educated people within the republican ranks as well. Plenty of them are in the judiciary system. But in recent history their presidential picks have been lacking on that front. And winning their spot more on the effectiveness of their politics than the technical strength of their arguments.

Overall if you look at a Republican primary in recent history for president they do have plenty of obviously articulate and intelligent candidates. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasic, Ted Cruz etc... But the Republican primaries have also had some super morons get air time or at least people who appear obviously inept at their would be job on TV. Ben Carson ( still shocking given he is a brain surgeon but he just said so much dumb shit and had zero policy knowledge), Herman Cain, and Trump. These people were simply devoid of being able to follow any foreign or domestic policy in any detail. And had frequent public gaffs.

At least in recent history Democrats have not attracted as many bewilderingly dense candidates. If Bernie Sanders were to win he would probably be one kind of pulling more in reasonably intelligent but not a hardcore academic direction. Bernie doesn't make crazy public gaffs and comes off as smart enough. But his arguments for policy are pretty simple and emotional. And he is clearly more of an idealist than a deeply academic politician. Maybe democrats have just gotten lucky that their recent successful candidates have a had a mix of strong technical skill and resonant emotional politics.

Part of this assumption also gets amplified by the stereotype that Republican voters are mostly middle America red neck uneducated hicks. And liberal are mostly coastal, privileged, stuck up, elites that think their college degree gives them the right to shit on rural America. But clearly the party bases are more diverse than this stereotype.

But I don't think anyone ever said that someone who went to a fancy school is smart. Plenty of us assume that rich undeserving people get slotted in those schools all time. If you go to Harvard there has always been two ways you got there. Either you were extremely motivated, intelligent and lucky, or your daddy went to Harvard and has money.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2111 on: February 06, 2020, 04:35:39 PM »
Regarding the intelligence of a candidate, just so you know how this self described moderate republican would chose based on this criteria... I recently took a survey regarding which characteristic of a president is most important to me.  I can't remember all the characteristics listed but there were choices like integrity, vision.  I chose.  COMMON SENSE.  So maybe your right.  Maybe republicans (at least this republican) don't vote based solely on intelligence.  And I REALLY don't vote for a president based on where they went to college.

Intelligence certainly matters to me in a candidate. But I can't say it is an overriding factor in voting for someone. I think generally, even for democrats, voting is more emotional.

I don't know if I could vote for someone as stupid as Trump. I haven't frankly seen an ancillary in my lifetime put up on the Democratic side for president. I wouldn't say its impossible. But I think someone at that level would fall below my threshold for voting for them even if our politics were in alignment.

I am trying to imagine a Democratic candidate coming down the pipeline openly scapegoating white people for all our problems. And laying out dumbass ways to hurt white people or something absurd like a mirror image of Trump, but pro diversity in a warped over the top way. Maybe someone celebrating anti vaxers as freedom from big pharma. And trying to force us all to be vegan to save us from global warming. Yeah I'd be pretty against that person too. And I would label them a dumbass.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15253
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2112 on: February 06, 2020, 04:55:07 PM »

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

Cogent post. Yes, if the Democratic Party wants to win it will need to rally its own base and persuade some of those who voted for him to not do so this time. If the Gallup polls the other day are to be believed, and I have no particular reason to doubt them, then it seems that they’re accomplishing the exact opposite. President Trump has a 94% approval rating amongst Republicans. I guess that impeachment thing didn’t win over many hearts and minds.

At this point, what exactly do you suggest that the Democrats should do to drop Trump's approval rating amongst Republicans?

They could go with Trump's playbook . . . Lie constantly, attack gay people, regularly drop ethnic slurs, openly favor Christianity over all other religions, lock kids as young as 3 years old up in cages, rob the poor to give to the rich, gerrymander, praise and embolden nazis, vote suppress, deny climate change, collaborate with foreign governments to win elections, attack transgendered people, make it easier for criminals to buy guns, praise dictators, and remove all impediments for business to destroy the environment.  There are plenty of ways to gain the support of Republicans these days.  Few that aren't morally reprehensible though.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2113 on: February 06, 2020, 06:36:47 PM »
Are we looking at the same polls?

RCP Average for Trump vs. X

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

Based on these polls do you think Biden is more electable in the general against Trump than Sanders?

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2114 on: February 06, 2020, 07:42:36 PM »


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

You’re offering a false choice. It’s not necessary to say that all candidates are equally bad in order to conclude that none are worth voting for.  Subjectively, I’d rather be kicked in the shin than poked in the eye. That doesn’t mean I want to volunteer to be kicked.

As for a “duty” to vote, as required by whom? Nowhere in the Constitution or our laws are private citizens required to vote. It’s strictly voluntary. At least until the political busybodies decide to force us to. For our own good, of course.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2375
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2115 on: February 06, 2020, 07:54:13 PM »


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

You’re offering a false choice. It’s not necessary to say that all candidates are equally bad in order to conclude that none are worth voting for.  Subjectively, I’d rather be kicked in the shin than poked in the eye. That doesn’t mean I want to volunteer to be kicked.

As for a “duty” to vote, as required by whom? Nowhere in the Constitution or our laws are private citizens required to vote. It’s strictly voluntary. At least until the political busybodies decide to force us to. For our own good, of course.

A duty is not a requirement, it is an expectation or commitment.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4965
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2116 on: February 06, 2020, 07:58:13 PM »


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

You’re offering a false choice. It’s not necessary to say that all candidates are equally bad in order to conclude that none are worth voting for.  Subjectively, I’d rather be kicked in the shin than poked in the eye. That doesn’t mean I want to volunteer to be kicked.


But by not voting, it’s not like you are spared one or the other. You still get kicked or poked. You just let someone else choose for you which one happens to you.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2375
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2117 on: February 06, 2020, 08:13:40 PM »


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

You’re offering a false choice. It’s not necessary to say that all candidates are equally bad in order to conclude that none are worth voting for.  Subjectively, I’d rather be kicked in the shin than poked in the eye. That doesn’t mean I want to volunteer to be kicked.


But by not voting, it’s not like you are spared one or the other. You still get kicked or poked. You just let someone else choose for you which one happens to you.

Right? Even if only 1% of the population votes, there's still a winner.

The only thing that changes when reasonable people don't vote is that the options become more and more extreme. There's no way the extremists are going to miss a chance to vote. The more moderate people who vote, the more it waters down the crazy, particular voting in primaries and local elections.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Age: 34
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2118 on: February 06, 2020, 09:01:04 PM »


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

You’re offering a false choice. It’s not necessary to say that all candidates are equally bad in order to conclude that none are worth voting for.  Subjectively, I’d rather be kicked in the shin than poked in the eye. That doesn’t mean I want to volunteer to be kicked.


But by not voting, it’s not like you are spared one or the other. You still get kicked or poked. You just let someone else choose for you which one happens to you.

Right? Even if only 1% of the population votes, there's still a winner.

The only thing that changes when reasonable people don't vote is that the options become more and more extreme. There's no way the extremists are going to miss a chance to vote. The more moderate people who vote, the more it waters down the crazy, particular voting in primaries and local elections.

Yup, agree with both of you 10000%.

Also: why is anyone bothering to respond to Boris? On anything ever? He has self-selected himself out of the population of people whose Opinions Matter (TM) by refusing to vote. Okay! So his opinions don't matter. So let's stop responding to him.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2119 on: February 06, 2020, 09:51:12 PM »
Are we looking at the same polls?

RCP Average for Trump vs. X

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

Based on these polls do you think Biden is more electable in the general against Trump than Sanders?

I'm not saying that it's definitive proof of anything. But what beyond just people's of personal biases for wanting someone like Buttigieg do they believe that he has a better shot than the rest? He still polls very poorly with minorities, a group without whom a Dem candidate cannot win.

At least Sanders and Biden are polling above water within a margin of error of each other. Buttigieg is swimming in 50/50 territory.

I'm just asking, is there any polling that shows Buttigieg winning? Sanders has at least some hope of bringing out people who don't normally vote in addition to his positive polling in both national polls and swing states. Does Buttigieg have any sort of theory on how he might win beyond maybe those Trump voters will just realize that his bland non-answers will just swing voters over to him?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3256
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2120 on: February 06, 2020, 09:53:03 PM »


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

You’re offering a false choice. It’s not necessary to say that all candidates are equally bad in order to conclude that none are worth voting for.  Subjectively, I’d rather be kicked in the shin than poked in the eye. That doesn’t mean I want to volunteer to be kicked.


But by not voting, it’s not like you are spared one or the other. You still get kicked or poked. You just let someone else choose for you which one happens to you.

There are degrees of not voting. I live in Illinois, I really don’t need to bother voting (for President). Same if I lived in NY or CA or TN.

Thats very different than not voting in WI or PA or FL or MI.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2121 on: February 06, 2020, 10:40:00 PM »
Are we looking at the same polls?

RCP Average for Trump vs. X

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

Based on these polls do you think Biden is more electable in the general against Trump than Sanders?

I'm not saying that it's definitive proof of anything. But what beyond just people's of personal biases for wanting someone like Buttigieg do they believe that he has a better shot than the rest? He still polls very poorly with minorities, a group without whom a Dem candidate cannot win.

At least Sanders and Biden are polling above water within a margin of error of each other. Buttigieg is swimming in 50/50 territory.

I'm just asking, is there any polling that shows Buttigieg winning? Sanders has at least some hope of bringing out people who don't normally vote in addition to his positive polling in both national polls and swing states. Does Buttigieg have any sort of theory on how he might win beyond maybe those Trump voters will just realize that his bland non-answers will just swing voters over to him?

I don't particularly want Buttigieg as a president although I guess he is preferable to some alternatives. My argument for his relative electability is solely that he lacks what I think are major weaknesses in most, but not all, of the remaining candidates.

-Trump hasn't started hammering Warren or Sanders on being loudly and consistently in favor of a bill that would ban private health insurance, but it would in the general and rightly or wrongly that would scare off a LOT of voters.

-Biden, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg are very much creatures of the status quo who I fear won't be able to attract Obama-Trump voters who voted sequentially for "change" candidates over status quo candidates even when the change on offer was at completely opposite ends of the political spectrum.

So just by process of elimination we are left with Yang, Buttigieg, and Steyer. Not a lot in common but none of the three are going to come across as irredeemably establishment candidates, nor are they locked in to supporting specific positions the vast majority of americans are strongly opposed to (ban on private healthcare). Of the three, I think Yang is the most electable given how many more Trump voters he attracts and his status as the last candidate with a net positive approval rating among general election voters, but then again I also want him to be the nominee, and it's always easier to see the case for electability for the candidate you want in office anyway. Of the three Buttigieg seems the most likely to end up as the nominee.

You can certainly make the argument for ignoring that sort of mental arithmetic in favor of data based measures like early general election polling.

But if you argue that polling demonstrates Buttigieg is less electable than Sanders, it seems only consistent to also argue that polling demonstrates that Biden is more electable than Sanders, don't you think?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2122 on: February 06, 2020, 11:42:16 PM »

I don't particularly want Buttigieg as a president although I guess he is preferable to some alternatives. My argument for his relative electability is solely that he lacks what I think are major weaknesses in most, but not all, of the remaining candidates.

-Trump hasn't started hammering Warren or Sanders on being loudly and consistently in favor of a bill that would ban private health insurance, but it would in the general and rightly or wrongly that would scare off a LOT of voters.

-Biden, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg are very much creatures of the status quo who I fear won't be able to attract Obama-Trump voters who voted sequentially for "change" candidates over status quo candidates even when the change on offer was at completely opposite ends of the political spectrum.

So just by process of elimination we are left with Yang, Buttigieg, and Steyer. Not a lot in common but none of the three are going to come across as irredeemably establishment candidates, nor are they locked in to supporting specific positions the vast majority of americans are strongly opposed to (ban on private healthcare). Of the three, I think Yang is the most electable given how many more Trump voters he attracts and his status as the last candidate with a net positive approval rating among general election voters, but then again I also want him to be the nominee, and it's always easier to see the case for electability for the candidate you want in office anyway. Of the three Buttigieg seems the most likely to end up as the nominee.

You can certainly make the argument for ignoring that sort of mental arithmetic in favor of data based measures like early general election polling.

But if you argue that polling demonstrates Buttigieg is less electable than Sanders, it seems only consistent to also argue that polling demonstrates that Biden is more electable than Sanders, don't you think?

I guess so? I just don't see the point that you're trying to make. You're the one making the argument that Buttigieg not only can win, but is likely the only one that can win. This would be a counter narrative towards what the polls currently show, so I would think the burden of proof of saying Buttigieg is a viable candidate really rests on the person making that claim.

I guess your point is to say "Hey neither of us think that Biden would come out +5% on Trump in a general election, so the polling is kind of bogus anyways"? We could look at Iowa and see that Biden waaay underperformed and scoff at his poll numbers, but we could also look at Iowa and see that Buttigieg also has an actual problem with minority voters. If we're only looking at Buttigieg and Sanders (I don't think anyone thinks Biden is winning at this poin). They are both going to have some weak spots.

Sanders polls poorly in AZ and IA
but Buttigieg is polling poorly in WI, NV

Buttigieg's poor numbers with minorities might also leave him outside of play in TX, FL, GA, and might hurt him in VA and NC as well.

Sanders and Biden both have a strong pull with the rust belt. Biden at least seems to have the general trust of black voters that would help him in the Southeast states. Bernie plays well in Appalachia

Where does Buttigieg hold an advantage?

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2123 on: February 07, 2020, 12:39:33 AM »
So just by process of elimination we are left with Yang, Buttigieg, and Steyer. Not a lot in common but none of the three are going to come across as irredeemably establishment candidates, nor are they locked in to supporting specific positions the vast majority of americans are strongly opposed to (ban on private healthcare). Of the three, I think Yang is the most electable given how many more Trump voters he attracts and his status as the last candidate with a net positive approval rating among general election voters, but then again I also want him to be the nominee, and it's always easier to see the case for electability for the candidate you want in office anyway. Of the three Buttigieg seems the most likely to end up as the nominee.

I guess so? I just don't see the point that you're trying to make. You're the one making the argument that Buttigieg not only can win, but is likely the only one that can win.

I think perhaps the reason you don't see the point I'm trying to make is because you're responding so quickly you are ending up arguing against a position I'm not taking.

Compare the bolded sentences from my original post (describing my actual position), to the bolded sentence where you describe the position you seem to believe I hold.

A rather significant difference, don't you think?

Quote
This would be a counter narrative towards what the polls currently show, so I would think the burden of proof of saying Buttigieg is a viable candidate really rests on the person making that claim.

Do you think Biden is a more electable candidate than Sanders? All you have to do is say that you do think that is the case, and I will completely agree you have a good case to make by pointing to general election polls ten months out that our default assumption should be that Buttigieg is a less electable candidate that Biden, Sanders, and Warren.

But it is not internally consistent to point to polls to say one candidate you don't back is less electable, unless you're also willing to accept that those same polls when they tell you another candidate is more electable than the one you do back.

You can either consider early general election polling data good information for judging Sander's relative electability compared to both Biden and Buttigieg or neither.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2375
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2124 on: February 07, 2020, 06:17:16 AM »


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

You’re offering a false choice. It’s not necessary to say that all candidates are equally bad in order to conclude that none are worth voting for.  Subjectively, I’d rather be kicked in the shin than poked in the eye. That doesn’t mean I want to volunteer to be kicked.


But by not voting, it’s not like you are spared one or the other. You still get kicked or poked. You just let someone else choose for you which one happens to you.

There are degrees of not voting. I live in Illinois, I really don’t need to bother voting (for President). Same if I lived in NY or CA or TN.

Thats very different than not voting in WI or PA or FL or MI.

I believe Buffalo abstains from voting in congressional, primary, and local elections as well.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1192
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2125 on: February 07, 2020, 06:46:38 AM »
New polls have Mayor Pete catching up with Sanders in New Hampshire. This is shaping up to be a close one!

I still like Bernie (yes I like most of the Dem candidates quite a bit), but what does will campaign say if Pete pulls a close 2nd (or maybe wins? unlikely but possible) in basically Bernie's backyard?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2126 on: February 07, 2020, 10:57:45 AM »
So just by process of elimination we are left with Yang, Buttigieg, and Steyer. Not a lot in common but none of the three are going to come across as irredeemably establishment candidates, nor are they locked in to supporting specific positions the vast majority of americans are strongly opposed to (ban on private healthcare). Of the three, I think Yang is the most electable given how many more Trump voters he attracts and his status as the last candidate with a net positive approval rating among general election voters, but then again I also want him to be the nominee, and it's always easier to see the case for electability for the candidate you want in office anyway. Of the three Buttigieg seems the most likely to end up as the nominee.

I guess so? I just don't see the point that you're trying to make. You're the one making the argument that Buttigieg not only can win, but is likely the only one that can win.

I think perhaps the reason you don't see the point I'm trying to make is because you're responding so quickly you are ending up arguing against a position I'm not taking.

Compare the bolded sentences from my original post (describing my actual position), to the bolded sentence where you describe the position you seem to believe I hold.

A rather significant difference, don't you think?

Quote
This would be a counter narrative towards what the polls currently show, so I would think the burden of proof of saying Buttigieg is a viable candidate really rests on the person making that claim.

Do you think Biden is a more electable candidate than Sanders? All you have to do is say that you do think that is the case, and I will completely agree you have a good case to make by pointing to general election polls ten months out that our default assumption should be that Buttigieg is a less electable candidate that Biden, Sanders, and Warren.

But it is not internally consistent to point to polls to say one candidate you don't back is less electable, unless you're also willing to accept that those same polls when they tell you another candidate is more electable than the one you do back.

You can either consider early general election polling data good information for judging Sander's relative electability compared to both Biden and Buttigieg or neither.

I bolded different sections here. I saw your last sentence as recognition that Yang and Steyer are not winning the primary. Therefor Buttigieg is the only one that you're putting forward. If I assumed too much, I guess I'll consider myself corrected. However, I read your comment quite closely.

Is this where I get to claim that you read my comment too quickly? ;P I admitted that Biden has better polling, and I think he specifically polls better in states that are most needed. My concern with Biden is not about his polls. It's more of his physical and mental capability of actually making it through the next 10 months. I'm concerned with Bernie for the same reason but not nearly to the extent that I am with Biden.

If Pete can only gain a +2-5% in states like MO, IA, and IN, then he still won't win.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3106
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2127 on: February 07, 2020, 12:59:08 PM »
The conversation seems to have moved on, but I'd like to make one point:

George W. Bush was indeed pretty casual about his grades at Yale. But there were plenty of stories about him being whip-smart in person. The country-bumpkin thing was at least a little bit of an act.

Would that the act were not necessary, but--frankly--I think he needed it to win power.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1622
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2128 on: February 07, 2020, 01:34:29 PM »
Why does Biden still get center stage st the NH Debate?  What is that based on?  Some specific national poll?  The fact that the DNC wants him front and center?  Certainly cant be a NH poll...

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 886
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2129 on: February 07, 2020, 02:28:22 PM »
Why does Biden still get center stage st the NH Debate?  What is that based on?  Some specific national poll?  The fact that the DNC wants him front and center?  Certainly cant be a NH poll...

National polls since the last debate:
Quote
The podium order was chosen based on the candidates’ averages in Democratic National Committee–approved polls conducted since the last debate on Nov. 20. The highest polling candidate — in this case Biden — was given the centerstage podium.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/474938-biden-will-be-only-candidate-at-center-stage-in-democratic-debate

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4965
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2130 on: February 07, 2020, 02:41:55 PM »
The conversation seems to have moved on, but I'd like to make one point:

George W. Bush was indeed pretty casual about his grades at Yale. But there were plenty of stories about him being whip-smart in person. The country-bumpkin thing was at least a little bit of an act.

Would that the act were not necessary, but--frankly--I think he needed it to win power.

You wouldn’t happen to be able to link to any of these anecdotes, would you?

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 886
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2131 on: February 07, 2020, 02:53:50 PM »
The conversation seems to have moved on, but I'd like to make one point:
George W. Bush was indeed pretty casual about his grades at Yale. But there were plenty of stories about him being whip-smart in person. The country-bumpkin thing was at least a little bit of an act.
Would that the act were not necessary, but--frankly--I think he needed it to win power.
You wouldn’t happen to be able to link to any of these anecdotes, would you?

Here's an article in Washington Post by the founder of Vox, so clearly fake news by the right-wing media ;-)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/24/george-w-bush-wasnt-dumb-but-he-was-still-a-bad-president/?arc404=true

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4965
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2132 on: February 07, 2020, 03:06:20 PM »
The conversation seems to have moved on, but I'd like to make one point:
George W. Bush was indeed pretty casual about his grades at Yale. But there were plenty of stories about him being whip-smart in person. The country-bumpkin thing was at least a little bit of an act.
Would that the act were not necessary, but--frankly--I think he needed it to win power.
You wouldn’t happen to be able to link to any of these anecdotes, would you?

Here's an article in Washington Post by the founder of Vox, so clearly fake news by the right-wing media ;-)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/24/george-w-bush-wasnt-dumb-but-he-was-still-a-bad-president/?arc404=true

Weird.

And interesting that he felt the need to look less smart in public. I doubt a Democrat would have felt the same need.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2133 on: February 07, 2020, 04:19:33 PM »

At this point, what exactly do you suggest that the Democrats should do to drop Trump's approval rating amongst Republicans?

They could go with Trump's playbook . . . Lie constantly, attack gay people, regularly drop ethnic slurs, openly favor Christianity over all other religions, lock kids as young as 3 years old up in cages, rob the poor to give to the rich, gerrymander, praise and embolden nazis, vote suppress, deny climate change, collaborate with foreign governments to win elections, attack transgendered people, make it easier for criminals to buy guns, praise dictators, and remove all impediments for business to destroy the environment.  There are plenty of ways to gain the support of Republicans these days.  Few that aren't morally reprehensible though.

OK. So I’m supposed to assume that I’m king of the Democratic Party for the next 9 months. What do I do?

First off, I recognize that the chances of unseating a sitting President are not very good. The times when that happens are usually a confluence of events. In 1992, the last time it happened it was the result of an unforced error by GHW Bush (“read my lips”) that pissed off the GOP base, combined with extreme hubris, a softening economy, and an extremely politically astute candidate running on the Democratic side. A similar alignment of the stars not likely this year. So with all respect to the posters who are eagerly awaiting the defeat of the incumbent president, I expect that they will be disappointed in the end. Sorry.

Second, I recognize that this “deplorables” crap needs to end. When did the Democratic Party decide that it hated white working-class voters, especially male ones? The long litany of character deficiencies referenced in your your second paragraph is an example of the sort of contempt white working class voters are viewed in. “Vote for me you knuckle-dragging moron” is not persuasive. And suicidal when you consider that at least some of said “knuckle draggers” need to be persuaded to change alliances.

Third, the candidate her or himself needs to be able to split off voters. Unfortunately the way that the candidate selection works ensures that this is unlikely. Pete Buttgieg isn’t going to do it. I think a better bet is a woman, but not one in the typical shrieking harpy mold that  the Democratic Party seems fixated on. There is such a candidate, a veteran no less with some cred on the right. And her chances of winning the nomination are pretty slim. If by some miracle such a candidate were selected, then it becomes a game of splitting off Midwest states using issues they care about. Hint: climate change isn’t one of them.

Finally, I prepare for 2024.  Because the chances of a Democratic win in 2020 aren’t very good.


YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 886
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2134 on: February 07, 2020, 05:05:09 PM »
Here's an article in Washington Post by the founder of Vox, so clearly fake news by the right-wing media ;-)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/24/george-w-bush-wasnt-dumb-but-he-was-still-a-bad-president/?arc404=true
Weird.
And interesting that he felt the need to look less smart in public. I doubt a Democrat would have felt the same need.

To a lesser degree, there was Bubba in '92.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1992-05-10-1992131158-story.html

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2135 on: February 07, 2020, 05:07:17 PM »
Is this where I get to claim that you read my comment too quickly? ;P I admitted that Biden has better polling, and I think he specifically polls better in states that are most needed. My concern with Biden is not about his polls. It's more of his physical and mental capability of actually making it through the next 10 months. I'm concerned with Bernie for the same reason but not nearly to the extent that I am with Biden.

If Pete can only gain a +2-5% in states like MO, IA, and IN, then he still won't win.

Okay, so we agree that whatever the value of general election polls, when there are other problems with a candidate that candidate may be less electable than their polling numbers indicate.

We agree Biden is less electable than his polling indicates. As I explained above (Post #2125), my view is that, but publicly tying themselves to the Sanders' version of Medicare for All (the version with a ban on private health insurance), Warren and Sanders both have dramatically undermined their chances of being elected in a way that won't be reflected in the polls yet, because right now most people don't associated medicare for all with a ban on private health insurance.* The republicans have no reason to talk this under during the primary, but in the general they could hammer away at either Sanders or Warren repeatedly endorsing a ban on private health insurance driving their poll numbers down.

So if Biden, Sanders and Warren are not electable for reasons that are not reflected in their current polling, of the limited subset of the remaining democratic candidates you seem interested in talking about (four out of eight major ones remaining) we are left with only Buttigieg. I completely agree he has iffy polling numbers, and seems at best a coin toss to defeat Trump.

But since you agree we can discount the polling numbers of candidates based on other concerns about them or their campaigns, Buttigieg is what we have left (again since you don't seem interested in discussing that the democratic party still also has potentially more electable options like Yang and Steyer).

You can certainly disagree with my view, but you asked "But what beyond just people's of personal biases for wanting someone like Buttigieg do they believe that he has a better shot than the rest?" in post #2123 and I have been trying to answer that question. I will admit to being somewhat confused at this point as to where our signals are getting crossed.

*In fact two thirds of democrats in favor of medicare for all assume that such a plan would let them keep their private health insurance if they chose to do so, so the favorability of medicare for all as a term doesn't map onto the specific bill that Sanders wrote and Warren endorsed.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4965
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2136 on: February 07, 2020, 05:16:47 PM »
Here's an article in Washington Post by the founder of Vox, so clearly fake news by the right-wing media ;-)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/24/george-w-bush-wasnt-dumb-but-he-was-still-a-bad-president/?arc404=true
Weird.
And interesting that he felt the need to look less smart in public. I doubt a Democrat would have felt the same need.

To a lesser degree, there was Bubba in '92.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1992-05-10-1992131158-story.html

You mean Clinton, the guy who was actually of humble birth and born and raised in the south...? I certainly don’t remember him ever pretending to be less smart.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15253
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2137 on: February 07, 2020, 05:48:26 PM »
Second, I recognize that this “deplorables” crap needs to end. When did the Democratic Party decide that it hated white working-class voters, especially male ones? The long litany of character deficiencies referenced in your your second paragraph is an example of the sort of contempt white working class voters are viewed in. “Vote for me you knuckle-dragging moron” is not persuasive. And suicidal when you consider that at least some of said “knuckle draggers” need to be persuaded to change alliances.

Oooh fun, taking Clinton's 2016 speech completely out of context.

"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.  Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but — he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

For saying very much what you just said in the above paragraph, Clinton was crucified by people on the right (and you continue to do so).  So, is your solution more of what has been proven not to work?


Third, the candidate her or himself needs to be able to split off voters. Unfortunately the way that the candidate selection works ensures that this is unlikely. Pete Buttgieg isn’t going to do it. I think a better bet is a woman, but not one in the typical shrieking harpy mold that  the Democratic Party seems fixated on. There is such a candidate, a veteran no less with some cred on the right. And her chances of winning the nomination are pretty slim. If by some miracle such a candidate were selected, then it becomes a game of splitting off Midwest states using issues they care about. Hint: climate change isn’t one of them.

Can you list some of the "shrieking harpy" women you're so dissatisfied with?  In your opinon, how should these harpies be made more demure/submissive?  Is this viewpoint why there are virtually no Republican women in either the House or the Senate?

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2138 on: February 07, 2020, 06:00:14 PM »
It's more of his physical and mental capability of actually making it through the next 10 months. I'm concerned with Bernie for the same reason but not nearly to the extent that I am with Biden.

If Pete can only gain a +2-5% in states like MO, IA, and IN, then he still won't win.
OK let me steelman Bernie a bit. You might have to watch this at half-speed to catch Bernie Usain-Bolting it through there. Bernie vs Bernie is golden. He is clearly a remarkably mentally vibrant person and good sport (though I do think he's simply wrong about a lot of things). Given the general quality of Bernie memes, I think he would be closer to being a serious contender against Trump than he would be Corbyn v2.

You are so going to Pete your words!

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2139 on: February 07, 2020, 06:14:35 PM »

At this point, what exactly do you suggest that the Democrats should do to drop Trump's approval rating amongst Republicans?

They could go with Trump's playbook . . . Lie constantly, attack gay people, regularly drop ethnic slurs, openly favor Christianity over all other religions, lock kids as young as 3 years old up in cages, rob the poor to give to the rich, gerrymander, praise and embolden nazis, vote suppress, deny climate change, collaborate with foreign governments to win elections, attack transgendered people, make it easier for criminals to buy guns, praise dictators, and remove all impediments for business to destroy the environment.  There are plenty of ways to gain the support of Republicans these days.  Few that aren't morally reprehensible though.

OK. So I’m supposed to assume that I’m king of the Democratic Party for the next 9 months. What do I do?

First off, I recognize that the chances of unseating a sitting President are not very good. The times when that happens are usually a confluence of events. In 1992, the last time it happened it was the result of an unforced error by GHW Bush (“read my lips”) that pissed off the GOP base, combined with extreme hubris, a softening economy, and an extremely politically astute candidate running on the Democratic side. A similar alignment of the stars not likely this year. So with all respect to the posters who are eagerly awaiting the defeat of the incumbent president, I expect that they will be disappointed in the end. Sorry.

Second, I recognize that this “deplorables” crap needs to end. When did the Democratic Party decide that it hated white working-class voters, especially male ones? The long litany of character deficiencies referenced in your your second paragraph is an example of the sort of contempt white working class voters are viewed in. “Vote for me you knuckle-dragging moron” is not persuasive. And suicidal when you consider that at least some of said “knuckle draggers” need to be persuaded to change alliances.

Third, the candidate her or himself needs to be able to split off voters. Unfortunately the way that the candidate selection works ensures that this is unlikely. Pete Buttgieg isn’t going to do it. I think a better bet is a woman, but not one in the typical shrieking harpy mold that  the Democratic Party seems fixated on. There is such a candidate, a veteran no less with some cred on the right. And her chances of winning the nomination are pretty slim. If by some miracle such a candidate were selected, then it becomes a game of splitting off Midwest states using issues they care about. Hint: climate change isn’t one of them.

Finally, I prepare for 2024.  Because the chances of a Democratic win in 2020 aren’t very good.

I don't agree the chances of Dems winning in 2020 aren't very good. It will probably be about coin flip odds. Trump had 1/5 odds of winning the first time. As a sitting president he will probably be at at least a 50% odds to win this go around. His base will turn out and Trump is a really strong campaigner. His margin for victory in many of the swings states was narrow the first go around though. All it will take is a candidate on the Dem side who can turn out more voters than Clinton in swing states. Or a weaker than expected turnout for Trump. This could be especially easy if the general hatred for Clinton caused a number of voters, especially in the Midwest, to just not vote.

I still think Bernie has the best chance to win because he has strong appeal among a similar portion of the base that broke for Trump. And he will definitely split off those working class people who are not clear conservatives but couldn't stomach Clinton. The rest of the Democrats that hate Bernie for being a wacky old socialist will suck it up and vote for him in blue states because they will have no other choice. The republicans showed us how that plays out last election cycle, when people said Trump could grab the whole Repub base because he was too extreme...

Warren would likely pull a stronger youth vote than Clinton, but the youth vote has never helped win a presidential election I know of. But she is still a change candidate with no negative marks against her. She is likable and popular with a good command of social media.

Buttigieg is a fresh face and a great speaker who would also likely do really if he mounted a solid campaign in the rust belt.

If any of those 3 become the candidate for the Dems they have a good shot. Why? Because they are either fresh faces or people who are perceived to be agents of change. I think the biggest failing of having a candidate like John Kerry run against Bush back the last time the dems were in this position is that he was a bland party loyalist. Fresh faces, agents of change, and charismatic speakers are more likely to gain the momentum they need to put up a good fight for president. And fortunately so far its seem the bland choice, *Biden*, are not doing so hot.

DaMa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 417
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2140 on: February 07, 2020, 06:32:21 PM »
As far as M4A, all it needs is for Sanders (or others) to say, look, I think single payer is the best plan for the long term.  But, if both houses of Congress pass a bill that allows everyone access to Medicare while still allowing them to chose a private health plan, I will sign it.  That's a compromise I can support, and a huge step in the right direction.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2141 on: February 07, 2020, 06:39:34 PM »
Is this where I get to claim that you read my comment too quickly? ;P I admitted that Biden has better polling, and I think he specifically polls better in states that are most needed. My concern with Biden is not about his polls. It's more of his physical and mental capability of actually making it through the next 10 months. I'm concerned with Bernie for the same reason but not nearly to the extent that I am with Biden.

If Pete can only gain a +2-5% in states like MO, IA, and IN, then he still won't win.

Okay, so we agree that whatever the value of general election polls, when there are other problems with a candidate that candidate may be less electable than their polling numbers indicate.

We agree Biden is less electable than his polling indicates. As I explained above (Post #2125), my view is that, but publicly tying themselves to the Sanders' version of Medicare for All (the version with a ban on private health insurance), Warren and Sanders both have dramatically undermined their chances of being elected in a way that won't be reflected in the polls yet, because right now most people don't associated medicare for all with a ban on private health insurance.* The republicans have no reason to talk this under during the primary, but in the general they could hammer away at either Sanders or Warren repeatedly endorsing a ban on private health insurance driving their poll numbers down.

So if Biden, Sanders and Warren are not electable for reasons that are not reflected in their current polling, of the limited subset of the remaining democratic candidates you seem interested in talking about (four out of eight major ones remaining) we are left with only Buttigieg. I completely agree he has iffy polling numbers, and seems at best a coin toss to defeat Trump.

But since you agree we can discount the polling numbers of candidates based on other concerns about them or their campaigns, Buttigieg is what we have left (again since you don't seem interested in discussing that the democratic party still also has potentially more electable options like Yang and Steyer).

You can certainly disagree with my view, but you asked "But what beyond just people's of personal biases for wanting someone like Buttigieg do they believe that he has a better shot than the rest?" in post #2123 and I have been trying to answer that question. I will admit to being somewhat confused at this point as to where our signals are getting crossed.

*In fact two thirds of democrats in favor of medicare for all assume that such a plan would let them keep their private health insurance if they chose to do so, so the favorability of medicare for all as a term doesn't map onto the specific bill that Sanders wrote and Warren endorsed.

We aren't talking past each other. You just wanted to hear me say that I think Biden has flaws that aren't reflected in the polling before making your actual point. Which boils down to: Polls do not reflect a specific M4A proposal of banning private insurance from covering what Medicare would cover and would therefor make Bernie a worse choice than Buttigieg.

At least now I understand your point of view on this. I completely disagree since the majority of the electorate are not policy wonks. It's such a minute point in Sander's and Warren's plans, I really don't see how you think this would cause a 4% swing. Especially since Sander's appeal is far more broad than M4A reaching into labor unions, trade agreements, social security protection, etc.

People are far more nuanced on this than you think. Here's some stats from this KPP poll:

Quote
Would you favor or oppose a national M4A plan if it...

Eliminates private health insurance, but let's you choose your doctor: 54% favor /43% oppose
employers pay more taxes, but eliminate all premiums and deductibles: 48/48
Increase taxes, but decrease overall cost: 47/48

Anyways, I have to jet for now. But I guess I'll just leave it at I respectfully disagree, but I understand your position.

Buffaloski Boris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2142 on: February 07, 2020, 07:37:15 PM »

Oooh fun, taking Clinton's 2016 speech completely out of context.

And? No one remembers or cares what else was said during that speech. Calling groups of Americans “deplorables” was an incredibly stupid political move. Much the same way no one remembers the rest of GHWBush’s “read my lips” speech. Of course quotes are going to be taken out of context. Welcome to politics.

Quote
So, is your solution more of what has been proven not to work?

No, my suggested solution, which you might recall you requested, can be summarized as “quit bitching about how awful the other side is and unfair it is that they won and start taking steps that might end in a victory for your faction.“  I think that winning the Presidency by the Democratic faction is unlikely, but possible.

You forget. I’m apolitical.I won’t be voting and can’t say as I much care which of these factions wins. In the end, more Americans will choose to stay home than vote for either faction.

Quote
Can you list some of the "shrieking harpy" women you're so dissatisfied with?  In your opinon, how should these harpies be made more demure/submissive?  Is this viewpoint why there are virtually no Republican women in either the House or the Senate?

My satisfaction or dissatisfaction is irrelevant; I won’t be showing up.  I don’t know about demure or submissive but I do believe that running candidates that remind people of their mother in law or ex-wife is not likely to be a winning strategy.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2251
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2143 on: February 07, 2020, 09:33:22 PM »
I think Amy Klobuchar had a strong debate at the New Hampshire debate tonight.


former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5070
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2144 on: February 08, 2020, 02:46:54 AM »
Quote
Can you list some of the "shrieking harpy" women you're so dissatisfied with?  In your opinon, how should these harpies be made more demure/submissive?  Is this viewpoint why there are virtually no Republican women in either the House or the Senate?

My satisfaction or dissatisfaction is irrelevant; I won’t be showing up.  I don’t know about demure or submissive but I do believe that running candidates that remind people of their mother in law or ex-wife is not likely to be a winning strategy.

Do you have any idea how offensive you are being?  And are you being so offensive on purpose?

(Also, have you read the Forum rules lately?  Maybe take a refresher in them?)
« Last Edit: February 08, 2020, 02:49:02 AM by former player »

Laserjet3051

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Age: 91
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2145 on: February 08, 2020, 07:21:57 AM »

At this point, what exactly do you suggest that the Democrats should do to drop Trump's approval rating amongst Republicans?

They could go with Trump's playbook . . . Lie constantly, attack gay people, regularly drop ethnic slurs, openly favor Christianity over all other religions, lock kids as young as 3 years old up in cages, rob the poor to give to the rich, gerrymander, praise and embolden nazis, vote suppress, deny climate change, collaborate with foreign governments to win elections, attack transgendered people, make it easier for criminals to buy guns, praise dictators, and remove all impediments for business to destroy the environment.  There are plenty of ways to gain the support of Republicans these days.  Few that aren't morally reprehensible though.

OK. So I’m supposed to assume that I’m king of the Democratic Party for the next 9 months. What do I do?

First off, I recognize that the chances of unseating a sitting President are not very good. The times when that happens are usually a confluence of events. In 1992, the last time it happened it was the result of an unforced error by GHW Bush (“read my lips”) that pissed off the GOP base, combined with extreme hubris, a softening economy, and an extremely politically astute candidate running on the Democratic side. A similar alignment of the stars not likely this year. So with all respect to the posters who are eagerly awaiting the defeat of the incumbent president, I expect that they will be disappointed in the end. Sorry.

Second, I recognize that this “deplorables” crap needs to end. When did the Democratic Party decide that it hated white working-class voters, especially male ones? The long litany of character deficiencies referenced in your your second paragraph is an example of the sort of contempt white working class voters are viewed in. “Vote for me you knuckle-dragging moron” is not persuasive. And suicidal when you consider that at least some of said “knuckle draggers” need to be persuaded to change alliances.

Third, the candidate her or himself needs to be able to split off voters. Unfortunately the way that the candidate selection works ensures that this is unlikely. Pete Buttgieg isn’t going to do it. I think a better bet is a woman, but not one in the typical shrieking harpy mold that  the Democratic Party seems fixated on. There is such a candidate, a veteran no less with some cred on the right. And her chances of winning the nomination are pretty slim. If by some miracle such a candidate were selected, then it becomes a game of splitting off Midwest states using issues they care about. Hint: climate change isn’t one of them.

Finally, I prepare for 2024.  Because the chances of a Democratic win in 2020 aren’t very good.

Stop making so much sense..............your beginning to scare me.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4965
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2146 on: February 08, 2020, 08:33:20 AM »
Quote
Can you list some of the "shrieking harpy" women you're so dissatisfied with?  In your opinon, how should these harpies be made more demure/submissive?  Is this viewpoint why there are virtually no Republican women in either the House or the Senate?

My satisfaction or dissatisfaction is irrelevant; I won’t be showing up.  I don’t know about demure or submissive but I do believe that running candidates that remind people of their mother in law or ex-wife is not likely to be a winning strategy.

Do you have any idea how offensive you are being?  And are you being so offensive on purpose?

(Also, have you read the Forum rules lately?  Maybe take a refresher in them?)

I mean, he does represent a certain sexist bent in the populace that is likely to be turned off by middle-aged, non-gorgeous women with experience and who are not afraid to speak their mind.

They are out there. A lot of them.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15253
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2147 on: February 08, 2020, 08:42:16 AM »

Oooh fun, taking Clinton's 2016 speech completely out of context.

And? No one remembers or cares what else was said during that speech. Calling groups of Americans “deplorables” was an incredibly stupid political move. Much the same way no one remembers the rest of GHWBush’s “read my lips” speech. Of course quotes are going to be taken out of context. Welcome to politics.

And . . . what you're quoting is a distortion of what was said in the speech, taken so out of context it makes your comment a lie.  If I wanted to play that game, here's an example I could take from Trump's state of the union:

Actually said - "But as we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely."

Totally taken out of context (the way Boris likes it):

"we work to take away your health care, take away your doctor entirely."


How can you support a president who wants to take away your health care and doctor Boris?  That's an incredibly stupid political move.  According to you, it doesn't matter what was actually said - only the lies others pass as the truth matter now.  Welcome to politics?


Quote
Can you list some of the "shrieking harpy" women you're so dissatisfied with?  In your opinon, how should these harpies be made more demure/submissive?  Is this viewpoint why there are virtually no Republican women in either the House or the Senate?

My satisfaction or dissatisfaction is irrelevant; I won’t be showing up.  I don’t know about demure or submissive but I do believe that running candidates that remind people of their mother in law or ex-wife is not likely to be a winning strategy.

Right.  So I'm asking, since this is obviously a big deal with you. . . What exactly should candidates do to be less like mother in laws or ex-wives?  Do they need to shut up and let the men talk more?  Or is the problem simply that women are running in the first place?  As mentioned, Republicans historically do not run or support female candidates who run.  That's why there are almost no elected republican women in office.  In your opinion does the Democratic party also need to abandon women to garner support of the right?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2020, 09:09:56 AM by GuitarStv »

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1451
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2148 on: February 08, 2020, 09:07:53 AM »
Lots of weak, insecure men are afraid of strong, assertive women.  Like slave-owners who wanted to keep their slaves in their right place, they have strongly held notions of how women should act and what behaviour is appropriate. It's not just among "conservatives" either - plenty of online communities like reddit are progressive in their economic outlook, but start talking about women's rights and gender equality and the gooey sexism oozes out.


maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2149 on: February 08, 2020, 10:11:50 AM »
And . . . what you're quoting is a distortion of what was said in the speech, taken so out of context it makes your comment a lie.  If I wanted to play that game, here's an example I could take from Trump's state of the union:

Actually said - "But as we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely."

Totally taken out of context (the way Boris likes it):

"we work to take away your health care, take away your doctor entirely."


How can you support a president who wants to take away your health care and doctor Boris?  That's an incredibly stupid political move.  According to you, it doesn't matter what was actually said - only the lies others pass as the truth matter now.  Welcome to politics?

These don't seem like comparable distortions. What Hillary Clinton actually said was that half of Trump's supporters were deplorables and the other half were decent people that the democratic party could and should work to win over. Would you agree that is an adequate summary of that segment of her speech?

So what has happened over time is people are talking something Clinton actually said (half of Trump supporters are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic) and they've been fudging the numbers until now most people seem to remember or think of it as her having said all 100% of Trump supporters fall into that category.

In your example distortion, you are taking something Trump said, and editing out some words out of it to have it mean the opposite. I tried to find a good statement from Trump's state of the union to illustrate a distortion where we'd take a moderate, measured, or qualified statement and distort it into an absolute statement. ... but in the short part of the transcript I was able to get through I couldn't find any. The guy speaks in absolute statements.

Anyway, imagine he'd said "We've already built half of a wall across our southern border which will keep immigrants out and preserve american jobs."
The statement gets repeated as "Trump says wall is complete and will preserve jobs."

People get angry because:
1) the wall isn't complete (which Trump didn't say)
2) The wall isn't even 50% complete (which Trump did say)
3) Even if the wall were complete it wouldn't stop immigration because there are huge gates all along its length which must be left open all summer to avoid it being destroyed by monsoon flooding. (Which isn't something Trump said, but is related to something he said.)

All that said, thank you for posting the full excerpt of the Clinton speech. The thing the next point she made (the "other basket" bit), is an important message even today, and it is indeed one I'd forgotten Clinton made back in 2016. "...that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from." 

I think Clinton's statement there just as valid, if not more so, in 2020 as it was in 2016. In some ways she was prescient that people who turned out to vote for change with Obama in 2008 and 2012 would vote for completely different change from a different source in 2016.