Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 147998 times)

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2550
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #750 on: August 25, 2019, 05:06:09 PM »
I think there is more bias against electing a female, than male no matter what flavor (Catholic, black, gay). For whatever reason, it tough going for a female to be elected in the US not just for president but in the political sphere in general, versus many many other countries. Don't ask me to explain it but it's almost to point it seems a female is unelectable, while the same attitudes does not hold true elsewhere. Many other countries have elected a female in top political position for many years (starting in the 1960's). I'm not just talking about places like UK, Norway, Iceland, Germany. Many African countries, China and India, where you would think there is pretty strong traditional, patriarchal attitudes It's a glass wall no American female has broken thus far.

@partgypsy, this is not a direct response to you.  I am quoting you out of convenience as yours is the latest post I noticed on the thread of "What criteria are unelectable?"  I remembered that there have been polls on this, and found this link from May of this year:

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/05/09/a-record-60-of-americans-say-they-could-vote-for-an-atheist-president

In 2019, 96% would vote for a black person, 95% would vote for a Catholic person, 94% would vote for a woman, only 76% would vote for a gay person, 63% would vote for someone over 70, and 47% would vote for a socialist.  There are several other criteria listed in a table in the above article.

the_gastropod

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 195
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #751 on: August 25, 2019, 05:32:50 PM »
As hopeful as the progress is on those numbers, they're still absolutely depressing (aside from the Socialism one, which is at least a political position, not a race, sex, sexual preference, or religion). Cripes do we have a long way to go...

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2550
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #752 on: August 25, 2019, 06:19:23 PM »
It occurred to me just now that Mayor Pete is both, I believe, under 40 and gay, so if one multiplies those two factors, he would have a ceiling of about 54%.  And note that the way the poll question is worded, it's an otherwise qualified person of your own party.

Sanders' two factors (over 70, socialist), means he's looking at a ceiling in the Democratic party of 29%.  That's miserably low.

Note that multiplying the two factors isn't accurate though, as any two factors are not likely to be fully independent statistically.

I also just noticed that all five top Democrat candidates have (at least) two factors on the list:

Biden - Catholic, over 70
Sanders - socialist, over 70
Warren - woman, over 70
Harris - woman, black
Buttegieg - gay, under 40

Hmm.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1367
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #753 on: August 25, 2019, 07:06:26 PM »
Trump is over 70 too.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #754 on: August 25, 2019, 08:01:34 PM »
It occurred to me just now that Mayor Pete is both, I believe, under 40 and gay, so if one multiplies those two factors, he would have a ceiling of about 54%.  And note that the way the poll question is worded, it's an otherwise qualified person of your own party.

Sanders' two factors (over 70, socialist), means he's looking at a ceiling in the Democratic party of 29%.  That's miserably low.

Note that multiplying the two factors isn't accurate though, as any two factors are not likely to be fully independent statistically.

I also just noticed that all five top Democrat candidates have (at least) two factors on the list:

Biden - Catholic, over 70
Sanders - socialist, over 70
Warren - woman, over 70
Harris - woman, black
Buttegieg - gay, under 40

Hmm.
Probably makes sense to look at the crosstab by party (despite what people may say abstractly in a survey): due to how polarized the political arena is currently, people who identify with a party will very likely disregard other "disqualifying" features in practice; for (Democrats, independents, Republicans) the percentages are:
gay: (83%, 82%, 61%)
under 40: (78%, 71%, 65%)
socialist: (74%, 49%, 19%)
over 70: (65%, 62%, 63%)

That results in the following minimum "ceilings" by party affiliation:
Pete: (65%, 58%, 40%)
Sanders: (48%, 30%, 12%) -- Sanders vs. Pete: (-17%, -18%, -28%)

Of course, Sanders doesn't fare better in these traits among independents and is much worse among Republicans, assuming the overlap of survey participants finding his pair of traits "negative" is not greatly in excess of Pete's. It should also be noted Sanders will be 79 years old on election day, and according to an actuarial table I found on the InternetTM, would have ~27% chance of dying between now and the end of his first term. For comparison, at age 74, Trump's 5 year odds are 19%, and Biden's 76 puts him at 22%.

By the way, Pete's book The Shortest Way Home is a fascinating read (at least with respect to its subtext), written with a "Spock-like detachment" according to the New York Review of Books. You can judge it by its cover: note the matching of colors between shirt and sky and between the tie and building--and he's literally rolling up his sleeves! Inside, his account of his life history reads mostly like a political resume starter-kit: High School class president, Harvard, intern for Ted Kennedy, grassroots campaign work for John Kerry and Obama, learn how the "real world" works by working in retail (well, more like retail analytics consulting work via McKinsey), get a brief tour of duty under the belt in the US Navy Reserve, be pulled into politics for selfless/idealistic reasons, become Mayor Pete, passive-aggressively reach across the aisle and get along with state governor Mike Pence, write a humble-brag book to coincide with the launch of your Presidential campaign... He would probably be a much more boring candidate if not for his being young and gay.

For the other candidates, being a woman, black, or Catholic is not nearly as bad as the four traits above (all >=90% for all affiliations). Though if I was Trump facing Harris, I would just play the clip from the 2nd debate of Mommy disemboweling Harris on an infinite loop (probably in slow motion when Harris lowers her head--such bad body language in her reaction!). I predict "Joe30330.com" Biden is going to score too many own-goals to limp across the line intact. My money is still on Warren getting the nomination.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #755 on: August 25, 2019, 08:34:53 PM »
...
Though if I was Trump facing Harris, I would just play the clip from the 2nd debate of Mommy disemboweling Harris on an infinite loop (probably in slow motion when Harris lowers her head--such bad body language in her reaction!). I predict "Joe30330.com" Biden is going to score too many own-goals to limp across the line intact. My money is still on Warren getting the nomination.

Everything Gabbard accuses her of is exaggerated and taken wildly out of context.

https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2019/aug/01/were-tulsi-gabbards-attacks-kamala-harris-record-c/

Although you're still probably right. He could play the clip and people would eat it up. That video would get way more attention than any article about it. And Harris didn't respond well.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #756 on: August 25, 2019, 08:45:33 PM »
...
Though if I was Trump facing Harris, I would just play the clip from the 2nd debate of Mommy disemboweling Harris on an infinite loop (probably in slow motion when Harris lowers her head--such bad body language in her reaction!). I predict "Joe30330.com" Biden is going to score too many own-goals to limp across the line intact. My money is still on Warren getting the nomination.

Everything Gabbard accuses her of is exaggerated and taken wildly out of context.

https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2019/aug/01/were-tulsi-gabbards-attacks-kamala-harris-record-c/

Although you're still probably right. He could play the clip and people would eat it up. That video would get way more attention than any article about it. And Harris didn't respond well.
Agreed on Gabbard's attack being heavily distorted: Tulsi had to sink her teeth into someone though. With a crowded field and the next debate cuts looming, this was her best chance to say something memorable and have a shot at clearing 2%. Screwed up incentives like these is why I lean towards a non-hereditary Constitutional Monarchy. It's hard to find candidates with that in their platforms though!

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #757 on: August 25, 2019, 08:50:55 PM »
In 2019, 96% would vote for a black person, 95% would vote for a Catholic person, 94% would vote for a woman, only 76% would vote for a gay person, 63% would vote for someone over 70, and 47% would vote for a socialist.  There are several other criteria listed in a table in the above article.
Considering 58.8% of people actually voted for someone over 70 in 1984 (yielding the most lopsided electoral results in the history of our country -- not counting unopposed George Washington), and our population has aged, I'm doubtful as to the numbers in this poll.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #758 on: August 25, 2019, 09:04:02 PM »
...
Though if I was Trump facing Harris, I would just play the clip from the 2nd debate of Mommy disemboweling Harris on an infinite loop (probably in slow motion when Harris lowers her head--such bad body language in her reaction!). I predict "Joe30330.com" Biden is going to score too many own-goals to limp across the line intact. My money is still on Warren getting the nomination.

Everything Gabbard accuses her of is exaggerated and taken wildly out of context.

https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2019/aug/01/were-tulsi-gabbards-attacks-kamala-harris-record-c/

Although you're still probably right. He could play the clip and people would eat it up. That video would get way more attention than any article about it. And Harris didn't respond well.
Agreed on Gabbard's attack being heavily distorted: Tulsi had to sink her teeth into someone though. With a crowded field and the next debate cuts looming, this was her best chance to say something memorable and have a shot at clearing 2%. Screwed up incentives like these is why I lean towards a non-hereditary Constitutional Monarchy. It's hard to find candidates with that in their platforms though!

Speaking of Tulsi Gabbard, she would be an interesting candidate. She has way more support from conservative media than the other candidates. I'd almost go as far as to say they like her. I think she could pull a lot of swing voters and many democrats say they'll vote for anyone but Trump. You might even worry that she would lose votes for lack of excitement, but I think she would retain most of the young voters who need to be "excited" enough to vote because she's a 38 year old female. Add to that her ability to attack and put Trump on the spot. She could potentially run away with the election.

And the lack of factual evidence to back up her claims wouldn't really matter, look who she'd be up against.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #759 on: August 25, 2019, 10:47:42 PM »
Probably makes sense to look at the crosstab by party (despite what people may say abstractly in a survey): due to how polarized the political arena is currently, people who identify with a party will very likely disregard other "disqualifying" features in practice; for (Democrats, independents, Republicans) the percentages are:
gay: (83%, 82%, 61%)
under 40: (78%, 71%, 65%)
socialist: (74%, 49%, 19%)
over 70: (65%, 62%, 63%)

I can't stand identity politics. I won't vote for or against anyone based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. I also don't want to vote for someone who exploits any of these traits in themselves to get others like them to vote for them.

Possibly age may be a factor if I don't think they will serve out their term. If older and they seem in good health, then it's not a factor.

The only item above that I think would affect independent voters is the socialist label.

Other than that, I vote solely on issues that are important to me. Maybe it's my limited perspective or I am projecting my own biases, but I think that's how most voters vote.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 10:52:02 PM by Daisy »

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1367
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #760 on: August 26, 2019, 03:22:51 AM »
Has Kamala Harris taken the time to refute Gabbard's assertion?  If not, they will stick and even dry.  With her being a flip flop, it doesn't look well for her.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #761 on: August 26, 2019, 05:07:20 AM »
Article on why Harris is not inspiring black voters:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/kamala-harris-black-voters.html

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3666
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #762 on: August 26, 2019, 07:09:41 AM »
What do you think about the trend of labeling many Democratic candidates with the "socialist" label. Successful strategy or not?

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #763 on: August 26, 2019, 07:11:07 AM »
Totally successful with people who fear big government.  Of course, none of this really sticks until the election is much closer.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #764 on: August 26, 2019, 07:14:31 AM »
I'm not sure who Harris is trying to inspire.  Hating on the US is probably not a winning strategy.  The oppressor/oppressed narrative isn't holding a lot of water these days, especially for someone trying to be the leader of the free world(who's a bigger oppressor than that?)


KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #765 on: August 26, 2019, 07:40:29 AM »
Yes, her campaign looks unfocused here.  This is not how you win the Electoral College.  If she is not focused on winning, she's not a good candidate.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3666
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #766 on: August 26, 2019, 07:40:58 AM »
It's especially not a successful strategy since many Native Americans have been effectively disenfranchised due to lack of polling stations in/near reservations, and voter ID laws that require an address (vs po box).

 https://www.narf.org/spirit-lake-voter-id/

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/state-native-american-voting-rights

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #767 on: August 26, 2019, 07:46:21 AM »
I live in a swing state.  Native Americans make up 0.9% of the state population, just over 53,000 people. So in my state, 53,000 votes would have tipped our state to Hillary. Perhaps Harris is onto something?  Maybe.  Now, not all 53,000 people are voting age, and you could assume that some portion voted for Hillary anyway.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3666
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #768 on: August 26, 2019, 07:50:23 AM »
Totally successful with people who fear big government.  Of course, none of this really sticks until the election is much closer.

I guess this is the thing I don't get. People who fear big government, often do not seem to mind, that we spend more than the next 7 high military spending countries, COMBINED (China. Saudi Arabia. Russia. UK. India. Franch. Japan). In fact, the US accounts for 37% of total world military spending. Talk about if you have fear of big government, that is BIG GOVERNMENT.

But, they don't want nationalized healthcare, even though all studies show that it: reduces costs per person, improves infant and other mortality, and improves public health in general (people are less sick and live longer). Life expectancy in the US is actually decreasing. In fact Americans have lower life expectancies than 30 other countries, almost all with much smaller GDP, budgets for health, etc.
I can understand wanting a smaller government in general, but to use Capitalism to solve a problem (health care and public health) when it doesn't do a good job and costs more, seems stupid. It's like using a a 1K oven to toast bread, but only half the people can afford that oven and the rest don't get toast at all.   
« Last Edit: August 26, 2019, 07:56:17 AM by partgypsy »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3666
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #769 on: August 26, 2019, 07:52:17 AM »
I live in a swing state.  Native Americans make up 0.9% of the state population, just over 53,000 people. So in my state, 53,000 votes would have tipped our state to Hillary. Perhaps Harris is onto something?  Maybe.  Now, not all 53,000 people are voting age, and you could assume that some portion voted for Hillary anyway.

I guess you didn't read what I posted. Native Americans are not a large voting bloc, especially with current voting laws. They are disenfranchised. The only reason to mention it, is to perhaps get white sympathy/shame votes but not as an actual voting bloc, unless current voter ID laws are changed, and there are resources allocated so that native peoples don't have to drive 50 miles to vote. I don't see that happening.

Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2530
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #770 on: August 26, 2019, 07:54:57 AM »
If Pete were elected, he may not be the first gay president. It has been speculated that James Buchanan (1857-1861) was our first gay president though it seems it can't be proven. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/17/who-was-our-first-gay-president/

I would gladly have a gay president who is intelligent and puts the American people first. The president we have now is in it to win it for making money for himself.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #771 on: August 26, 2019, 08:13:20 AM »

I guess you didn't read what I posted. Native Americans are not a large voting bloc, especially with current voting laws.

I am not always posting in direct response to others' posts. 

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #772 on: August 26, 2019, 10:06:47 AM »
It seems Trump has alienated a lot of minorities and that should put a hit on his election. He has bashed native Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, blacks. He has said degrading things about women! He doesn't seem to recognize  LGBTQ people. He sides with dictators and rejects our American intelligence.  Why would anyone from these groups vote for him? 

Trump's support among black and Hispanic voters has actually increased during his presidency, not decreased. Humans are much more complex than sweeping generalities allow for.


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4699
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #773 on: August 26, 2019, 10:31:46 AM »
It seems Trump has alienated a lot of minorities and that should put a hit on his election. He has bashed native Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, blacks. He has said degrading things about women! He doesn't seem to recognize  LGBTQ people. He sides with dictators and rejects our American intelligence.  Why would anyone from these groups vote for him? 

Trump's support among black and Hispanic voters has actually increased during his presidency, not decreased. Humans are much more complex than sweeping generalities allow for.

The only sources I can find that say this are right-wing media, citing a Poll conducted by Zogby, which doesn’t have the best record for accuracy or lack of bias.

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #774 on: August 26, 2019, 11:26:53 AM »
It seems Trump has alienated a lot of minorities and that should put a hit on his election. He has bashed native Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, blacks. He has said degrading things about women! He doesn't seem to recognize  LGBTQ people. He sides with dictators and rejects our American intelligence.  Why would anyone from these groups vote for him? 

Trump's support among black and Hispanic voters has actually increased during his presidency, not decreased. Humans are much more complex than sweeping generalities allow for.

The only sources I can find that say this are right-wing media, citing a Poll conducted by Zogby, which doesn’t have the best record for accuracy or lack of bias.

I don't remember where I heard it being discussed but this article (yes, from a very conservative source) links to a few different polls: https://spectator.org/why-trumps-approval-ratings-are-up-among-minorities/. Most are from right leaning pollsters (but not all, Marist has an A rating from 538) but most of the numbers are big enough they can't just be bias corrected away. When you're starting from 8% of the black vote there's not really anywhere to go but up.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3666
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #775 on: August 26, 2019, 01:46:49 PM »
It seems Trump has alienated a lot of minorities and that should put a hit on his election. He has bashed native Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, blacks. He has said degrading things about women! He doesn't seem to recognize  LGBTQ people. He sides with dictators and rejects our American intelligence.  Why would anyone from these groups vote for him? 

Trump's support among black and Hispanic voters has actually increased during his presidency, not decreased. Humans are much more complex than sweeping generalities allow for.

The only sources I can find that say this are right-wing media, citing a Poll conducted by Zogby, which doesn’t have the best record for accuracy or lack of bias.

I don't remember where I heard it being discussed but this article (yes, from a very conservative source) links to a few different polls: https://spectator.org/why-trumps-approval-ratings-are-up-among-minorities/. Most are from right leaning pollsters (but not all, Marist has an A rating from 538) but most of the numbers are big enough they can't just be bias corrected away. When you're starting from 8% of the black vote there's not really anywhere to go but up.

For many people rightly or wrongly "it's the economy, stupid". If people approve of Trump for economic reasons,  we will just have to see how that wears when next fall rolls around.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1367
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #776 on: August 26, 2019, 02:41:17 PM »

- SNIP -

For many people rightly or wrongly "it's the economy, stupid". If people approve of Trump for economic reasons,  we will just have to see how that wears when next fall rolls around.

Very very good point.  If Trump can make the link to you having a job to his actions, that buys him a lot.  When you are unemployed, the unemployment is 100 percent.  When you are employed the unemployment is 0 percent.  That is the statistic that counts.

Trump may be ineffectual, but his rhetoric points to giving people jobs.  This points to dignity for those people who are looking for those jobs.  This is missed by many folks.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #777 on: August 27, 2019, 05:43:13 PM »
Probably makes sense to look at the crosstab by party (despite what people may say abstractly in a survey): due to how polarized the political arena is currently, people who identify with a party will very likely disregard other "disqualifying" features in practice; for (Democrats, independents, Republicans) the percentages are:
gay: (83%, 82%, 61%)
under 40: (78%, 71%, 65%)
socialist: (74%, 49%, 19%)
over 70: (65%, 62%, 63%)

I can't stand identity politics. I won't vote for or against anyone based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. I also don't want to vote for someone who exploits any of these traits in themselves to get others like them to vote for them.

Possibly age may be a factor if I don't think they will serve out their term. If older and they seem in good health, then it's not a factor.

The only item above that I think would affect independent voters is the socialist label.

Other than that, I vote solely on issues that are important to me. Maybe it's my limited perspective or I am projecting my own biases, but I think that's how most voters vote.
To quote Samuel L's greatest movie line, hold onto your butts and check out this fun article about lesbians who are considering whether it's more important to have the first woman president or the first openly gay one.

Noted in the article:
The majority of the women POLITICO interviewed for this story did not want to speak on the record, citing a desire not to damage Buttigieg’s campaign.

Really? they are afraid of damaging his campaign with their identity politics trash? However, there were also some non-anonymous remarks:
“Having a woman, finally, as our president is important to me,” Cherry said. “The mistake is to suggest that we all stay in one lane — for example that if you’re gay you should be supporting gay candidates, or if you’re a woman you should be supporting women candidates.”

So the solution is that if you're a gay woman, you should support a gay or woman candidate! Or maybe it's self-evident to her that everyone should support a woman candidate this time and the gays will get their turn next. What a bizarre level of self-awareness she must posses!

For more on identity politics from the only political YT channel I can stand, I recommend this video (or if you prefer, just jump to the infographic under discussion--did you know that Amy Klobuchar is basically a female Pete Buttigieg?).

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1910
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #778 on: August 27, 2019, 06:22:00 PM »
I can't stand identity politics. I won't vote for or against anyone based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. I also don't want to vote for someone who exploits any of these traits in themselves to get others like them to vote for them.

Possibly age may be a factor if I don't think they will serve out their term. If older and they seem in good health, then it's not a factor.

The only item above that I think would affect independent voters is the socialist label.

Other than that, I vote solely on issues that are important to me. Maybe it's my limited perspective or I am projecting my own biases, but I think that's how most voters vote.

@Daisy - this is a great post. It’s crazy to me to think that people see no fault in “I want to vote for xxx because they’re black/gay/female/etc,” and see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

In my eyes, voting for someone specifically for a trait such as that, is every bit as bad as not voting for someone specifically for one of those reasons..

Heaven forbid that candidates are chosen solely based on whether we believe they are the best choice to be our president.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4818
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #779 on: August 27, 2019, 07:27:30 PM »
I can't stand identity politics. I won't vote for or against anyone based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. I also don't want to vote for someone who exploits any of these traits in themselves to get others like them to vote for them.

Possibly age may be a factor if I don't think they will serve out their term. If older and they seem in good health, then it's not a factor.

The only item above that I think would affect independent voters is the socialist label.

Other than that, I vote solely on issues that are important to me. Maybe it's my limited perspective or I am projecting my own biases, but I think that's how most voters vote.

@Daisy - this is a great post. It’s crazy to me to think that people see no fault in “I want to vote for xxx because they’re black/gay/female/etc,” and see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

In my eyes, voting for someone specifically for a trait such as that, is every bit as bad as not voting for someone specifically for one of those reasons..

Heaven forbid that candidates are chosen solely based on whether we believe they are the best choice to be our president.
The problem of course is that the USA has had more than two hundred years of not voting for someone because she's a woman.  It's hardly surprising if after two hundred years of overt discrimination someone is saying "I want to do something to change that".

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1910
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #780 on: August 27, 2019, 07:54:53 PM »
I can't stand identity politics. I won't vote for or against anyone based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. I also don't want to vote for someone who exploits any of these traits in themselves to get others like them to vote for them.

Possibly age may be a factor if I don't think they will serve out their term. If older and they seem in good health, then it's not a factor.

The only item above that I think would affect independent voters is the socialist label.

Other than that, I vote solely on issues that are important to me. Maybe it's my limited perspective or I am projecting my own biases, but I think that's how most voters vote.

@Daisy - this is a great post. It’s crazy to me to think that people see no fault in “I want to vote for xxx because they’re black/gay/female/etc,” and see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

In my eyes, voting for someone specifically for a trait such as that, is every bit as bad as not voting for someone specifically for one of those reasons..

Heaven forbid that candidates are chosen solely based on whether we believe they are the best choice to be our president.
The problem of course is that the USA has had more than two hundred years of not voting for someone because she's a woman.  It's hardly surprising if after two hundred years of overt discrimination someone is saying "I want to do something to change that".

I’m not saying it’s surprising. Look at some of the people in our country.

I’m saying it’s not right to change the discrimination to a different group.

NO discrimination should be acceptable. Period. It doesn’t matter if it’s against a black homosexual woman or an old white man. Choosing, or not choosing someone based on their skin color, gender, or sexual orientation, is everything we have been battling against the last 200 years..

Choosing someone because they are a *new* category of these traits that hasn’t been elected in the past is only further perpetuating what fuels discrimination.. Saying that these people ARE different. Electing someone because they are a woman, or gay, would mean that the belief is that women or gays are somehow different. We have been fighting for the view that everyone can be equals and these traits do not make a difference. Of course, the only differences would be classified as stereotypes..
« Last Edit: August 28, 2019, 05:27:33 AM by use2betrix »

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #781 on: August 27, 2019, 08:46:38 PM »
The soft bigotry of low expectations...

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #782 on: August 28, 2019, 06:54:23 AM »
The status quo for hundreds of years has been straight white (mostly older) men. When you consider our country's treatment of women and PoC, I don't see the logic in equating "it would be nice for non-straight white older male citizens to have a President that is more like them" to prejudice.

As many of the Dems have said on the campaign trial, it's not enough to have neutral policies. Neutral policies would be great, IF our government/businesses/institutions had a track record of treating everyone neutrally. They do not. PoC basically had generations of property stolen from them. So what, you just "call it all even" now? Who the heck feels entitled enough to make that call?

We need policies that actively promote racial and gender equality to overcome the staggering history of mistreatment of women and PoC in our country.

Oh and on a different note, it looks like Steyer is going to miss the next debate. The Quinnipiac and USA Today polls (both approved by the DNC) came out this morning and neither has him at 2 percent. It looks like we might get our 10-candidate one-night debate. I have mixed feelings but still would have preferred two nights, allowing the top 5 candidates to have the stage to themselves for one night.

« Last Edit: August 28, 2019, 07:29:52 AM by Nick_Miller »

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1367
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #783 on: August 28, 2019, 09:22:32 AM »
So the only Republican running against Trump is this William Weld guy.  That seems odd as Trump is so controversial.

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/28/20813989/bill-weld-primary-trump-2020-new-hampshire

Do you think they will let him debate Trump?  Another Republican pointing out some nasties could make some people sit up and think where as otherwise they would simply follow the program.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #784 on: August 28, 2019, 09:28:10 AM »
So the only Republican running against Trump is this William Weld guy.  That seems odd as Trump is so controversial.

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/28/20813989/bill-weld-primary-trump-2020-new-hampshire

Do you think they will let him debate Trump?  Another Republican pointing out some nasties could make some people sit up and think where as otherwise they would simply follow the program.

Joe Walsh anounced

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #785 on: August 28, 2019, 09:37:49 AM »
So the only Republican running against Trump is this William Weld guy.  That seems odd as Trump is so controversial.

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/28/20813989/bill-weld-primary-trump-2020-new-hampshire

Do you think they will let him debate Trump?  Another Republican pointing out some nasties could make some people sit up and think where as otherwise they would simply follow the program.

Joe Walsh anounced

That's great, I saw him in concert when he opened for Tom Petty.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14645
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #786 on: August 28, 2019, 09:39:26 AM »
So the only Republican running against Trump is this William Weld guy.  That seems odd as Trump is so controversial

Doesn't seem odd at all to me.  Trump has steadily held 90% approval ratings among Republicans.  This proves that he's exactly the kind of man they like, doing exactly the kind of things they like to see done.  Seems like a fools errand to try to run against a man so overwhelmingly loved by the party.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #787 on: August 28, 2019, 09:49:43 AM »
So the only Republican running against Trump is this William Weld guy.  That seems odd as Trump is so controversial

Doesn't seem odd at all to me.  Trump has steadily held 90% approval ratings among Republicans.  This proves that he's exactly the kind of man they like, doing exactly the kind of things they like to see done.  Seems like a fools errand to try to run against a man so overwhelmingly loved by the party.

Yep, Joe Walsh lost his conservative talk radio show because he dared criticize the president. 80-90% of his listeners liked Trump. Even if someone wants to go against him they quickly lose their platform and credibility within the party.

It's somewhat reassuring (maybe?) that Walsh seems so confident that his Republican colleagues are not as supportive of Trump privately as they are publicly. His view is that many Republican lawmakers don't like Trump but are in a position where if they speak out they lose their voice, just like he did.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #788 on: August 28, 2019, 09:50:27 AM »
So the only Republican running against Trump is this William Weld guy.  That seems odd as Trump is so controversial.

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/28/20813989/bill-weld-primary-trump-2020-new-hampshire

Do you think they will let him debate Trump?  Another Republican pointing out some nasties could make some people sit up and think where as otherwise they would simply follow the program.

Joe Walsh anounced

That's great, I saw him in concert when he opened for Tom Petty.

Well, at least it's good to know that he's still sane after all he's been through

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14645
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #789 on: August 28, 2019, 10:02:12 AM »
So the only Republican running against Trump is this William Weld guy.  That seems odd as Trump is so controversial.

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/28/20813989/bill-weld-primary-trump-2020-new-hampshire

Do you think they will let him debate Trump?  Another Republican pointing out some nasties could make some people sit up and think where as otherwise they would simply follow the program.

Joe Walsh anounced

That's great, I saw him in concert when he opened for Tom Petty.

Well, at least it's good to know that he's still sane after all he's been through

Yeah.  I heard that his Maserati went 185 . . . he lost his license and now he can't drive.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2550
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #790 on: August 28, 2019, 10:05:06 AM »
So the only Republican running against Trump is this William Weld guy.  That seems odd as Trump is so controversial.

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/28/20813989/bill-weld-primary-trump-2020-new-hampshire

Do you think they will let him debate Trump?  Another Republican pointing out some nasties could make some people sit up and think where as otherwise they would simply follow the program.

I believe Trump has declined to debate any of the Republican candidates.  I didn't know if historically incumbent Presidents running for re-election have done primary debates as a matter of course or not, so I consulted Wikipedia.  It turns out there was a presidential debate at Saint Anselm College in December 2011; seven of the minor candidates attended but President Obama did not.

I think the strategic thinking is that sharing a debate stage with relative unknowns elevates those unknowns and doesn't do much for an incumbent President, so I can see why it isn't typically done.

Also according to Wikipedia, the last serious challenger to an incumbent president was when Senator Ted Kennedy ran against President Carter in 1980.  In that situation, Carter also declined to debate Kennedy.

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #791 on: August 28, 2019, 11:28:35 AM »
At least Andrew Yang made the debate.  https://www.yang2020.com/policies/ His policies make a lot of sense for an independent such as myself.

vern

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #792 on: August 28, 2019, 01:00:09 PM »
The dnc is terrified that Tulsi will be in the next debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwjRnXGtkr0



ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #793 on: August 28, 2019, 01:34:31 PM »
The dnc is terrified that Tulsi will be in the next debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwjRnXGtkr0
After the 2nd debate, I was a solid fan of Tulsi.  Still like her, but the more I listen to Yang, the more I think he can bring both sides together.   I watched an hour long interview of Yang by the ultra conservative Ben Shapiro, and even Shapiro was agreeing with a lot he says.  Plus he is not spewing hate that will alienate the millions that voted for Trump like many of the candidates.  Calling half the country racist might help you win a primary of your own party but won't help win the election.  Watch his DNC speech from last week for a powerful statement. 

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #794 on: August 28, 2019, 01:35:46 PM »
Here is that speech from last week's DNC meeting.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evP21V0OoPQ

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3666
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #795 on: August 28, 2019, 02:13:18 PM »
So the only Republican running against Trump is this William Weld guy.  That seems odd as Trump is so controversial.

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/28/20813989/bill-weld-primary-trump-2020-new-hampshire

Do you think they will let him debate Trump?  Another Republican pointing out some nasties could make some people sit up and think where as otherwise they would simply follow the program.

I believe Trump has declined to debate any of the Republican candidates.  I didn't know if historically incumbent Presidents running for re-election have done primary debates as a matter of course or not, so I consulted Wikipedia.  It turns out there was a presidential debate at Saint Anselm College in December 2011; seven of the minor candidates attended but President Obama did not.

I think the strategic thinking is that sharing a debate stage with relative unknowns elevates those unknowns and doesn't do much for an incumbent President, so I can see why it isn't typically done.

Also according to Wikipedia, the last serious challenger to an incumbent president was when Senator Ted Kennedy ran against President Carter in 1980.  In that situation, Carter also declined to debate Kennedy.

If you are the incumbent, there is no advantage and every disadvantage to debating another candidate of your party.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #796 on: August 28, 2019, 05:43:40 PM »
The dnc is terrified that Tulsi will be in the next debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwjRnXGtkr0
I don't agree with that interpretation. Why would the exact criteria matter for which polls the DNC counts? They aren't making it up as they go along to exclude certain candidates; the list of sponsoring organizations was released over 6 months ago.

As much as I would personally enjoy seeing Tulsi in the next debate, the DNC does need to winnow the field at some point. Sadly, it looks like debate #3 will still be a total circus with 10 people on stage again...

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2181
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #797 on: August 28, 2019, 05:55:05 PM »
Which of the Democratic candidates do you feel would be the most effective in a debate with Trump during the general election?

I don't think Biden would be able to debate Trump very well because he would seem less energetic, and prone to making verbal mistakes that would make him seem out of it.
Buttigieg would be the most poised and quick witted in a debate with Trump.
Warren would also be an effective communicator although she at times might not be as able to deftly brush off Trump's insults.
I think Booker, and Sanders would do pretty good.
If her experience with Gabbard is any indication, I don't think Harris could fend off an attack by Trump during a one on one debate.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #798 on: August 28, 2019, 06:29:02 PM »
Which of the Democratic candidates do you feel would be the most effective in a debate with Trump during the general election?

I don't think Biden would be able to debate Trump very well because he would seem less energetic, and prone to making verbal mistakes that would make him seem out of it.
Buttigieg would be the most poised and quick witted in a debate with Trump.
Warren would also be an effective communicator although she at times might not be as able to deftly brush off Trump's insults.
I think Booker, and Sanders would do pretty good.
If her experience with Gabbard is any indication, I don't think Harris could fend off an attack by Trump during a one on one debate.
Good: Bernie, Pete, Tulsi, Booker(?)
OK: Harris, Klobuchar, Castro, Gillbrand(?)
Weird: Yang, Williamson
Bad: Beto, Biden, Warren (yes, really!)

ecchastang

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #799 on: August 28, 2019, 07:08:18 PM »
Which of the Democratic candidates do you feel would be the most effective in a debate with Trump during the general election?

I don't think Biden would be able to debate Trump very well because he would seem less energetic, and prone to making verbal mistakes that would make him seem out of it.
Buttigieg would be the most poised and quick witted in a debate with Trump.
Warren would also be an effective communicator although she at times might not be as able to deftly brush off Trump's insults.
I think Booker, and Sanders would do pretty good.
If her experience with Gabbard is any indication, I don't think Harris could fend off an attack by Trump during a one on one debate.
Good: Bernie, Pete, Tulsi, Booker(?)
OK: Harris, Klobuchar, Castro, Gillbrand(?)
Weird: Yang, Williamson
Bad: Beto, Biden, Warren (yes, really!)
Having watched videos of Yang, I think he should be in the Good list and Bernie doen into the OK list.  Harris got clobbered by Tulsi in a debate proving she is in the Bad list.  Warren would be OK in a debate with Trump.