Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 16532 times)

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #250 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.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #251 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.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #252 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.


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3825
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #253 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.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #254 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.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #255 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.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #256 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.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #257 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.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2019, 10:47:24 AM by Daisy »

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #258 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.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2019, 12:19:02 PM by Daisy »

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1096
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #259 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.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #260 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.


YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #261 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

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #262 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

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.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #263 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

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.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #264 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.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #265 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.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 08:21:06 AM by Nick_Miller »

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #266 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?

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1497
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #267 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.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #268 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.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #269 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.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #270 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.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #271 on: April 06, 2019, 11:01:56 PM »
Tim Ryan, US Representative from Ohio, announced his candidacy today.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #272 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.

MayDay

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3904
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #273 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.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #274 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.

MayDay

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3904
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #275 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.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #276 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. 

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1064
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #277 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.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #278 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.)

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #279 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?

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #280 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.

« Last Edit: April 08, 2019, 09:35:45 AM by Lmoot »

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #281 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).

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Southern California
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #282 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?

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2349
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #283 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.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1375
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #284 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.




YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #285 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.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #286 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?"

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2349
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #287 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.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #288 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.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #289 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.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1375
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #290 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.

« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 02:11:15 PM by Poundwise »

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #291 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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 03:22:51 PM by Lmoot »

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #292 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.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1962
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #293 on: April 10, 2019, 08:09:59 PM »
I'll take any Democrat we can get into office.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #294 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?

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #295 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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 10:22:42 PM by Lmoot »

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #296 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.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #297 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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 10:42:27 PM by Lmoot »

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #298 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.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #299 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.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2019, 05:27:47 AM by Lmoot »