The Money Mustache Community

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

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

GOP:
Trump (declared on Jan 20, 2017)

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

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

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



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

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

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



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want Kasich for GOP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am with Kris with saying no more billionaires.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the lack of experience is your real issue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the lack of experience is your real issue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the lack of experience is your real issue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the lack of experience is your real issue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's unfortunately a matter of identity and rhetoric at this point, rather than policy. Clearly the GOP is not very good for the deficit, it's just the cudgel they use to bash the DNC and appeal to part of their base.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: golden1 on February 04, 2019, 06:53:00 PM
I was thinking about all of the presidential candidates in my lifetime (since 1976) and without an exception, and regardless of political party, character or policy ideas, the most charismatic candidate won.

Ford vs Carter:  A stick is more charismatic than Ford
Reagan vs Carter:  Reagan by a mile
Reagan vs Mondale: Ditto
Bush vs Dukakis:  Bush was definitely not charismatic but Dukakis was worse
Bush vs Clinton:  Clinton for sure
Clinton vs. Dole: Ditto
Bush vs Gore:  Bush is only moderately charismatic but Gore was definitely not at all
Bush vs Kerry:  Similar, although this one is almost a toss up
Obama vs McCain: Obama, although McCain wasnít terrible
Obama vs Romney:  Romney was a stiff
Trump vs Clinton:  Trump is very charismatic to certain people, ex reality actor, years in the public eye etc....  Clinton was never very comfortable on camera

My point is that only a very charismatic person is going to excite the Democrats enough to beat trump.  So far, the best bets are probably Bernie or Harris.  Bernie might be the safer bet in that the real left wing wonít vote for a centrist candidate, but the centrist democrats will vote for whoever isnít Trump.  I personally think Sanders will be a terrible president though, but who knows.

After 2016, who knows anything anymore.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 04, 2019, 07:19:43 PM
I was thinking about all of the presidential candidates in my lifetime (since 1976) and without an exception, and regardless of political party, character or policy ideas, the most charismatic candidate won.

Ford vs Carter:  A stick is more charismatic than Ford
Reagan vs Carter:  Reagan by a mile
Reagan vs Mondale: Ditto
Bush vs Dukakis:  Bush was definitely not charismatic but Dukakis was worse
Bush vs Clinton:  Clinton for sure
Clinton vs. Dole: Ditto
Bush vs Gore:  Bush is only moderately charismatic but Gore was definitely not at all
Bush vs Kerry:  Similar, although this one is almost a toss up
Obama vs McCain: Obama, although McCain wasnít terrible
Obama vs Romney:  Romney was a stiff
Trump vs Clinton:  Trump is very charismatic to certain people, ex reality actor, years in the public eye etc....  Clinton was never very comfortable on camera

My point is that only a very charismatic person is going to excite the Democrats enough to beat trump.  So far, the best bets are probably Bernie or Harris.  Bernie might be the safer bet in that the real left wing wonít vote for a centrist candidate, but the centrist democrats will vote for whoever isnít Trump.  I personally think Sanders will be a terrible president though, but who knows.

After 2016, who knows anything anymore.

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

I do, too. But not at all charismatic.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Blueberries on February 05, 2019, 06:13:23 AM
I was thinking about all of the presidential candidates in my lifetime (since 1976) and without an exception, and regardless of political party, character or policy ideas, the most charismatic candidate won.

My point is that only a very charismatic person is going to excite the Democrats enough to beat trump.  So far, the best bets are probably Bernie or Harris.  Bernie might be the safer bet in that the real left wing wonít vote for a centrist candidate, but the centrist democrats will vote for whoever isnít Trump.  I personally think Sanders will be a terrible president though, but who knows.

After 2016, who knows anything anymore.

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

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

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

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

It's odd, but I was having zero success getting a NC driver's license when I first moved here. Then--on my third visit--I said, "I want to get a driver's license and register to vote as a Republican", and it's like the doors open, and everyone wants to help me.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: J Boogie on February 05, 2019, 03:27:41 PM
I was thinking about all of the presidential candidates in my lifetime (since 1976) and without an exception, and regardless of political party, character or policy ideas, the most charismatic candidate won.

Ford vs Carter:  A stick is more charismatic than Ford
Reagan vs Carter:  Reagan by a mile
Reagan vs Mondale: Ditto
Bush vs Dukakis:  Bush was definitely not charismatic but Dukakis was worse
Bush vs Clinton:  Clinton for sure
Clinton vs. Dole: Ditto
Bush vs Gore:  Bush is only moderately charismatic but Gore was definitely not at all
Bush vs Kerry:  Similar, although this one is almost a toss up
Obama vs McCain: Obama, although McCain wasnít terrible
Obama vs Romney:  Romney was a stiff
Trump vs Clinton:  Trump is very charismatic to certain people, ex reality actor, years in the public eye etc....  Clinton was never very comfortable on camera

My point is that only a very charismatic person is going to excite the Democrats enough to beat trump.  So far, the best bets are probably Bernie or Harris.  Bernie might be the safer bet in that the real left wing wonít vote for a centrist candidate, but the centrist democrats will vote for whoever isnít Trump.  I personally think Sanders will be a terrible president though, but who knows.

After 2016, who knows anything anymore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on February 06, 2019, 06:37:27 AM
I was thinking about all of the presidential candidates in my lifetime (since 1976) and without an exception, and regardless of political party, character or policy ideas, the most charismatic candidate won.

Ford vs Carter:  A stick is more charismatic than Ford
Reagan vs Carter:  Reagan by a mile
Reagan vs Mondale: Ditto
Bush vs Dukakis:  Bush was definitely not charismatic but Dukakis was worse
Bush vs Clinton:  Clinton for sure
Clinton vs. Dole: Ditto
Bush vs Gore:  Bush is only moderately charismatic but Gore was definitely not at all
Bush vs Kerry:  Similar, although this one is almost a toss up
Obama vs McCain: Obama, although McCain wasnít terrible
Obama vs Romney:  Romney was a stiff
Trump vs Clinton:  Trump is very charismatic to certain people, ex reality actor, years in the public eye etc....  Clinton was never very comfortable on camera

My point is that only a very charismatic person is going to excite the Democrats enough to beat trump.  So far, the best bets are probably Bernie or Harris.  Bernie might be the safer bet in that the real left wing wonít vote for a centrist candidate, but the centrist democrats will vote for whoever isnít Trump.  I personally think Sanders will be a terrible president though, but who knows.

After 2016, who knows anything anymore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This one just won't die

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.  Just no. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damn, I wish he was 10 years younger.

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

Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: anisotropy on February 08, 2019, 04:16:06 PM
At this point, I would actively vote against any candidate that supports the newly unveiled GND. I read through not just the ridiculous "fact sheet" but also the actual resolution itself and nope.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 08, 2019, 04:19:13 PM
At this point, I would actively vote against any candidate that supports the newly unveiled GND. I read through not just the ridiculous "fact sheet" but also the actual resolution itself and nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But you think halting births is the solution?


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


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

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

Quote
we're looking for practical solutions

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

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

https://youtu.be/DwXweiRjckI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

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

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



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

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

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

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

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

Straight
White
Male

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

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

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

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

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

Here's the thing.

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

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

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

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

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

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

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

Here's the thing.

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

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

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

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

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

I get that. Two counterpoints though.

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

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

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

Here's the thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one has accused Trump of messing with kids.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one has accused Trump of messing with kids.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one has accused Trump of messing with kids.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one has accused Trump of messing with kids.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internal...  Sure...

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

Internal...  Sure...

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

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

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

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

Internal...  Sure...

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

"The following is for statistical purposes only..." (read the small print on the yellow card over the area where Warren writes "American Indian")
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: libertarian4321 on February 13, 2019, 08:48:08 AM
At this point, I would actively vote against any candidate that supports the newly unveiled GND. I read through not just the ridiculous "fact sheet" but also the actual resolution itself and nope.

The resolution is almost childish in it's naivete.

While I agree with many of the goals, the resolution reads like it was written by some  idealistic/clueless, wide-eyed school kid with no experience and no grip on reality.

I know some of the more radical "progressive" Dems (Warren, Harris, Gillibrand, have come out in favor of it (did they actually read it?).  Others have dodged it.  And a couple (smartly) said they agreed with the ideals, but not the resolution as written.

I'm generally not a fan of Bloomberg (that "soda ban" thing in NYC was ridiculous), and he's "green," but I thought he had the best answer of any Dem (or potential Dem) candidate so far.  Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D) stressed that a Green New Deal should offer realistic solutions and not "things that are pie in the sky." 

If this thing does pass, though, it's only a matter of time before Nanny Bloomberg announces a ban on large slices "pie in the sky."



Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: sherr on February 13, 2019, 09:12:18 AM
At this point, I would actively vote against any candidate that supports the newly unveiled GND. I read through not just the ridiculous "fact sheet" but also the actual resolution itself and nope.

The resolution is almost childish in it's naivete.

While I agree with many of the goals, the resolution reads like it was written by some  idealistic/clueless, wide-eyed school kid with no experience and no grip on reality.

I know some of the more radical "progressive" Dems (Warren, Harris, Gillibrand, have come out in favor of it (did they actually read it?).  Others have dodged it.  And a couple (smartly) said they agreed with the ideals, but not the resolution as written.

I'm generally not a fan of Bloomberg (that "soda ban" thing in NYC was ridiculous), and he's "green," but I thought he had the best answer of any Dem (or potential Dem) candidate so far.  Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D) stressed that a Green New Deal should offer realistic solutions and not "things that are pie in the sky." 

If this thing does pass, though, it's only a matter of time before Nanny Bloomberg announces a ban on large slices "pie in the sky."

It's a non-binding resolution. It carries exactly as much practical weight as voting on the statement "Hey it would be nice if we could do something about this climate-change thing." Which is essentially what it is, just with specific ideas on what "do something" might mean.

I agree that it's naive, but only real practical problem with that is that it gives Republicans an easy excuse not to vote for it. So yes, it should be better, but there's no reason to deride the politicians who do vote for it. They are signalling their agreement with the "ideals", nothing more.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 13, 2019, 09:25:11 AM
^^^ This.

Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: J Boogie on February 13, 2019, 10:28:41 AM
^^^ This.

Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

Kris, I think that's because there isn't much of a point to giving any more energy to a continual assessment of the GOP agenda. Trump identified that many people are unhappy with the state of the country, pointed to a few bogeymen, and has proceeded as a hybrid between a standard modern day republican (conservative nominations to the supreme court, lowering taxes, deficit spending) and an unfocused narcissist. Is the GOP going to come up with any proposals worth serious thought anytime soon?

If there is any proposal worth some critical thinking, it's the proposals coming from progressives. There is much benefit to be had from some rethinking of our approach to the environment, the economy, healthcare, and infrastructure.

The problem is that AOC and her partners are the de facto champion of these ideas, and they're creating a full sense of urgency with half baked solutions. I can't support someone who doesn't have good ideas just because they care about things that are important. People who might be sympathetic to intelligent approaches to addressing these problems will regard AOC the way we regard Trump.

After all, I'm also concerned about some of the problems (opiates, rural stagnation) that helped get Trump elected. But his half baked solutions and over the top rhetoric result in him receiving no support from me and others like me.




Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on February 13, 2019, 10:33:42 AM
^^^ This.

Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

Kris, I think that's because there isn't much of a point to giving any more energy to a continual assessment of the GOP agenda. Trump identified that many people are unhappy with the state of the country, pointed to a few bogeymen, and has proceeded as a hybrid between a standard modern day republican (conservative nominations to the supreme court, lowering taxes, deficit spending) and an unfocused narcissist. Is the GOP going to come up with any proposals worth serious thought anytime soon?

If there is any proposal worth some critical thinking, it's the proposals coming from progressives. There is much benefit to be had from some rethinking of our approach to the environment, the economy, healthcare, and infrastructure.

The problem is that AOC and her partners are the de facto champion of these ideas, and they're creating a full sense of urgency with half baked solutions. I can't support someone who doesn't have good ideas just because they care about things that are important. People who might be sympathetic to intelligent approaches to addressing these problems will regard AOC the way we regard Trump.

After all, I'm also concerned about some of the problems (opiates, rural stagnation) that helped get Trump elected. But his half baked solutions and over the top rhetoric result in him receiving no support from me and others like me.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, staid, rational scientists don't get elected to political office. I would kill for some sensible, non-partisan leadership, but I'll never see it in my lifetime.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 13, 2019, 10:36:45 AM
^^^ This.

Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

Kris, I think that's because there isn't much of a point to giving any more energy to a continual assessment of the GOP agenda. Trump identified that many people are unhappy with the state of the country, pointed to a few bogeymen, and has proceeded as a hybrid between a standard modern day republican (conservative nominations to the supreme court, lowering taxes, deficit spending) and an unfocused narcissist. Is the GOP going to come up with any proposals worth serious thought anytime soon?

If there is any proposal worth some critical thinking, it's the proposals coming from progressives. There is much benefit to be had from some rethinking of our approach to the environment, the economy, healthcare, and infrastructure.

The problem is that AOC and her partners are the de facto champion of these ideas, and they're creating a full sense of urgency with half baked solutions. I can't support someone who doesn't have good ideas just because they care about things that are important. People who might be sympathetic to intelligent approaches to addressing these problems will regard AOC the way we regard Trump.

After all, I'm also concerned about some of the problems (opiates, rural stagnation) that helped get Trump elected. But his half baked solutions and over the top rhetoric result in him receiving no support from me and others like me.

I can understand that.

The problem is, AOC and her partners are the ONLY ones trying to address these problems.

Nancy Pelosi mocks the "Green Dream" but the corporate-funded Democrats are too afraid to even talk about doing anything. They acknowledge that human-induced climate change exists, but they put nothing forward to do anything about it. Personally, I'll take a full sense of urgency over no sense of urgency at all. We're also seeing people actually start talking about universal health care as a serious subject for the first time, and that would never have happened if the progressives weren't unafraid to bring it up and risk being labeled "evil socialists."

Centrist Dems get next to nothing done. Bring on the left-wing crazies who at least force a dialog to start.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: anisotropy on February 13, 2019, 11:01:44 AM
Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

This echoes: it's better to be "morally right" than being "factually correct".

No thank you. Putting less emphasis on what is factually correct is how we ended up with Trump.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: madgeylou on February 13, 2019, 11:04:43 AM
I think when we dismiss AOCís proposals as half-baked and too idealistic, we are making a big mistake. No big program is fully baked on the day it is proposed. Did JFK know exactly how we were gonna get to the moon when he made it a goal? Does anyone have a fully baked solution to climate change and economic and environmental justice?

The point is that yes, this shit is urgent. To the point where CHILDREN are protesting the inaction of the adults in power. We canít wait to have the whole thing worked out before we start. I think the Green New Deal is the exact right proposal right now ó letís define what the issues are and what we want the solutions to look like once implemented, and then letís build it brick by brick.

I really appreciate how AOC defines solutions as well ó like, if we find a way for rich white people to survive climate change and no one else, well thatís not a good solution. If we move to more renewable power but Flint still doesnít have drinkable water, thatís also not a good solution. We need to include justice for all in our plans or else weíre not really solving anything.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 13, 2019, 11:21:05 AM
Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

This echoes: it's better to be "morally right" than being "factually correct".

No thank you. Putting less emphasis on what is factually correct is how we ended up with Trump.

I see nothing factually incorrect in the GND.

Whether it's all the best idea or not is debatable. As in, it should be up for debate. Which is kind of the point of introducing it, no? To actually start discussing ways to deal with the problem?
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: anisotropy on February 13, 2019, 11:30:38 AM
Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

This echoes: it's better to be "morally right" than being "factually correct".

No thank you. Putting less emphasis on what is factually correct is how we ended up with Trump.

I see nothing factually incorrect in the GND.

Whether it's all the best idea or not is debatable. As in, it should be up for debate. Which is kind of the point of introducing it, no? To actually start discussing ways to deal with the problem?

The fundamental assumptions incorporated in the GND are incorrect. Be it fossil fuel is only about transportation (it's not, you take petro chem away the society falls), renewables are viable at large scale, or the complete bs hiding behind the Trojan horse word "equity". All factually incorrect.

I wouldn't even say we should be debating if these are good ideas, rather, a more relevant debate would be if these people live in the same universe as the rest of us.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 13, 2019, 11:38:07 AM
Of course, it's idealistic. It's a resolution. Resolutions are about principles. About taking a moral stance.

And between the moral stance that is idealistic, and the GOP's moral stance of extreme cynicism and denial, I'll take the idealistic side any day of the week. The GOP is morally bankrupt on this issue. It should be shocking. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where there are people who will spend more ink/time/outrage being upset at the naivete of the GND, though.

This echoes: it's better to be "morally right" than being "factually correct".

No thank you. Putting less emphasis on what is factually correct is how we ended up with Trump.

I see nothing factually incorrect in the GND.

Whether it's all the best idea or not is debatable. As in, it should be up for debate. Which is kind of the point of introducing it, no? To actually start discussing ways to deal with the problem?

The fundamental assumptions incorporated in the GND are incorrect. Be it fossil fuel is only about transportation (it's not, you take petro chem away the society falls), renewables are viable at large scale, or the complete bs hiding behind the Trojan horse word "equity". All factually incorrect.

I wouldn't even say we should be debating if these are good ideas, rather, a more relevant debate would be if these people live in the same universe as the rest of us.

Can you find me where it is in the GND that the assumption is that fossil fuel is only about transportation?

Also, as far as I can see, the word "equity" never appears in the GND. (Except for a reference to a study done by a group that has the word in its name.) So, I'm not really seeing what you're saying there.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: anisotropy on February 13, 2019, 12:04:30 PM
Can you find me where it is in the GND that the assumption is that fossil fuel is only about transportation?

Also, as far as I can see, the word "equity" never appears in the GND. (Except for a reference to a study done by a group that has the word in its name.) So, I'm not really seeing what you're saying there.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

1E  "to promote justice and equity by stopping current..." Not to mention another Trojan horse word "inclusion" that's peppered throughout.

2H  "overhauling transportation systems in the United States..."

Not sure how you missed these? Are we living in the same universe? jk

The fact the resolution was so focused on "transportation" and doesn't even touch on the far-reaching impacts of petro chem suggests to me these people have no clue just how much of a role fossil fuel plays in our everyday life.

I used to know some "smart" folks (they gone now) who thought electricity came out of the wall sockets, I think the GND is meant for these folks.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on February 13, 2019, 12:09:13 PM
Can you find me where it is in the GND that the assumption is that fossil fuel is only about transportation?

Also, as far as I can see, the word "equity" never appears in the GND. (Except for a reference to a study done by a group that has the word in its name.) So, I'm not really seeing what you're saying there.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

1E  "to promote justice and equity by stopping current..."

2H  "overhauling transportation systems in the United States..."

Not sure how you missed these? Are we living in the same universe? jk

The fact the resolution was so focused on "transportation" and doesn't even touch on the far-reaching impacts of petro chem suggests to me these people have no clue just how much of a role fossil fuel plays in our everyday life.

I used to know some "smart" folks (they gone now) who thought electricity came out of the wall sockets, I think the GND is meant for these folks.

Huh. Not sure how my search missed that.

So you're saying you don't think there are vulnerable communities who are and will continue to be disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change? Or you think there are, but you don't think we should address it?

I don't really see how saying transportation systems in the US need to be overhauled is the same as saying that that's the only petrochemicals issue, though.

(Note: I don't want to derail this thread, which is about 2020 POTUS candidates. So maybe a new thread about the GND is a good idea. I'm not gonna start it, but maybe someone else would like to.)
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: sherr on February 13, 2019, 12:17:38 PM
Can you find me where it is in the GND that the assumption is that fossil fuel is only about transportation?

Also, as far as I can see, the word "equity" never appears in the GND. (Except for a reference to a study done by a group that has the word in its name.) So, I'm not really seeing what you're saying there.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

1E  "to promote justice and equity by stopping current..." Not to mention another Trojan horse word "inclusion" that's peppered throughout.

2H  "overhauling transportation systems in the United States..."

Not sure how you missed these? Are we living in the same universe? jk

The fact the resolution was so focused on "transportation" and doesn't even touch on the far-reaching impacts of petro chem suggests to me these people have no clue just how much of a role fossil fuel plays in our everyday life.

I used to know some "smart" folks (they gone now) who thought electricity came out of the wall sockets, I think the GND is meant for these folks.

No comment on the "trojan words", but the fossil fuel references are very clearly not solely linked to transportation.

2B:
Quote
repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, includingó

(i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible;

2C
Quote
Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources

2F
Quote
spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: anisotropy on February 13, 2019, 12:22:57 PM
Maybe like Kris said a new thread on gnd would be warranted. Too bad the next leg of my post-fire travels is set to begin soon and I will be away again.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: andy85 on February 13, 2019, 12:36:54 PM
Andrew Yang was on the Joe Rogan podcast yesterday. He is running on a platform of Universal Basic Income. Obviously a long shot, to say the least, but I really liked him. I don't consider myself a Dem and don't agree with a lot of his policies, but he seems like a real genuine guy. His website also has an insane amount of policy positions on it...maybe like 75 positions whereas I feel like other candidates' seem to have like a dozen positions listed at max.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8
https://www.yang2020.com/
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: OurTown on February 13, 2019, 01:59:49 PM
Sweet Jesus God!  If you want policy, here's your guy:  https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: OurTown on February 13, 2019, 02:05:22 PM
Now if only the Republicans would nominate a woman named "Yin."
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on February 13, 2019, 04:45:09 PM
So, Governor Weld of Massachusetts may run for the Republican nomination.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Poundwise on February 13, 2019, 07:21:11 PM
So, Governor Weld of Massachusetts may run for the Republican nomination.

OMG, he's still kicking around??
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: J Boogie on February 14, 2019, 09:05:31 AM
He must be emboldened after his strong showing as VP on the libertarian ticket ;)

Must have been awkward to have your partner tank interviews like that.

After that Weld started low key campaigning for Hillary. Basically equivocating in interviews when they asked him about playing spoiler. He would more or less say his number one priority is making sure Trump didn't get elected.

Given that, I think he'd be happy to beat Trump up a bit from the R side in the primaries. But I'm not sure Weld has enough money or influence to be recognized as a challenger by the GOP).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: accolay on February 14, 2019, 09:28:40 AM
Sweet Jesus God!  If you want policy, here's your guy:  https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
His policies read to me as the opinions from another well off kid who grew up to be a rich business man who has never served in government.

UBI for every single American over 18? 6 billion for failing malls across America? Secure the border from all them illegals, ignore those that come here legally and stay beyond their visas? Incorporate a White House Psychologist Corp? All laws should have a sunset period? (Like which ones, specifically, does he have a problem with?) Protect the children from smartphones?

Meh, I'm not so impressed. I think there are already better candidates in the line up.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on February 15, 2019, 10:10:24 AM
I was thinking about all of the presidential candidates in my lifetime (since 1976) and without an exception, and regardless of political party, character or policy ideas, the most charismatic candidate won.

Ford vs Carter:  A stick is more charismatic than Ford
Reagan vs Carter:  Reagan by a mile
Reagan vs Mondale: Ditto
Bush vs Dukakis:  Bush was definitely not charismatic but Dukakis was worse
Bush vs Clinton:  Clinton for sure
Clinton vs. Dole: Ditto
Bush vs Gore:  Bush is only moderately charismatic but Gore was definitely not at all
Bush vs Kerry:  Similar, although this one is almost a toss up
Obama vs McCain: Obama, although McCain wasnít terrible
Obama vs Romney:  Romney was a stiff
Trump vs Clinton:  Trump is very charismatic to certain people, ex reality actor, years in the public eye etc....  Clinton was never very comfortable on camera

My point is that only a very charismatic person is going to excite the Democrats enough to beat trump.  So far, the best bets are probably Bernie or Harris.  Bernie might be the safer bet in that the real left wing wonít vote for a centrist candidate, but the centrist democrats will vote for whoever isnít Trump.  I personally think Sanders will be a terrible president though, but who knows.

After 2016, who knows anything anymore.

At first these conclusions seem appealing, but consider:

in 1976, Reagan lost a GOP primary to Ford;
in 1988, Dukakis beat Jesse Jackson in the Democratic primary; Joe Biden also ran in that primary, and many people thought he would have challenged Clinton well in 2016;
in 2000, Gore--who was less charismatic--won the popular vote outright;
in 2016, Trump--despite being more charismatic than Romney--won about the same number of votes nation-wide;

I think it's very tempting to look at the winners and say they were charismatic, but really only Reagan and Pres. Clinton were uniquely talented. And if Gore had won in 2000, W. looks forward to a retirement of dancing with the stars and being McCain's secretary of energy, and we're all wondering why it seems like only nerds can win the White House.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on February 19, 2019, 09:36:27 AM
Welp, Bernie Sanders has officially thrown his hat in the ring to shoot for the Democratic Party nomination.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on March 01, 2019, 06:03:42 AM
And Jay Inslee is in.

I've never heard of him, but he comes in with political gravitas as a two-term governor of a major state, and it appears he intends to make climate change the central issue of his campaign. That immediately makes him a front-runner for my vote in the primary, though I doubt it's salient enough for most Americans to push him over the line for the nomination. I'll have to do some more research on this guy, but frankly it's been disappointing to me how little attention climate change gets compared to topics like social justice and healthcare (which, don't get me wrong, those are important issues, but we're running out of time to do anything meaningful about the biggest issue facing our planet and our species).
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: soccerluvof4 on March 01, 2019, 06:26:36 AM
I was thinking about all of the presidential candidates in my lifetime (since 1976) and without an exception, and regardless of political party, character or policy ideas, the most charismatic candidate won.

Ford vs Carter:  A stick is more charismatic than Ford
Reagan vs Carter:  Reagan by a mile
Reagan vs Mondale: Ditto
Bush vs Dukakis:  Bush was definitely not charismatic but Dukakis was worse
Bush vs Clinton:  Clinton for sure
Clinton vs. Dole: Ditto
Bush vs Gore:  Bush is only moderately charismatic but Gore was definitely not at all
Bush vs Kerry:  Similar, although this one is almost a toss up
Obama vs McCain: Obama, although McCain wasnít terrible
Obama vs Romney:  Romney was a stiff
Trump vs Clinton:  Trump is very charismatic to certain people, ex reality actor, years in the public eye etc....  Clinton was never very comfortable on camera

My point is that only a very charismatic person is going to excite the Democrats enough to beat trump.  So far, the best bets are probably Bernie or Harris.  Bernie might be the safer bet in that the real left wing wonít vote for a centrist candidate, but the centrist democrats will vote for whoever isnít Trump.  I personally think Sanders will be a terrible president though, but who knows.

After 2016, who knows anything anymore.

At first these conclusions seem appealing, but consider:

in 1976, Reagan lost a GOP primary to Ford;
in 1988, Dukakis beat Jesse Jackson in the Democratic primary; Joe Biden also ran in that primary, and many people thought he would have challenged Clinton well in 2016;
in 2000, Gore--who was less charismatic--won the popular vote outright;
in 2016, Trump--despite being more charismatic than Romney--won about the same number of votes nation-wide;

I think it's very tempting to look at the winners and say they were charismatic, but really only Reagan and Pres. Clinton were uniquely talented. And if Gore had won in 2000, W. looks forward to a retirement of dancing with the stars and being McCain's secretary of energy, and we're all wondering why it seems like only nerds can win the White House.



I would definitely agree that there when it comes to being Charismatic Reagan, Clinton , Obama and Trump would be the four. While that might of played a roll it was different reasons at the time for each. But also agree not all Charisma is good depending on the mood of the people.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: davisgang90 on March 01, 2019, 09:35:11 AM
Welp, Bernie Sanders has officially thrown his hat in the ring to shoot for the Democratic Party nomination.
Gotta get some popcorn.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on March 01, 2019, 09:58:13 AM
I suspect Inslee will mostly serve as an issue candidate. Given that climate change is the issue, if he can force that to be a prt of the discussion then I think that he will be useful. He tends to be pretty measured and even when speaking, so I just don't see him firing up the voters to get to the polls. He has generally been a good governor, but his AG (Ferguson) and prior to governors (Gregoire and Locke)  I think I liked a bit better.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on March 01, 2019, 12:20:14 PM
I suspect Inslee will mostly serve as an issue candidate. Given that climate change is the issue, if he can force that to be a prt of the discussion then I think that he will be useful. He tends to be pretty measured and even when speaking, so I just don't see him firing up the voters to get to the polls. He has generally been a good governor, but his AG (Ferguson) and prior to governors (Gregoire and Locke)  I think I liked a bit better.

Fine with me. Someone needs to be beating the drum. I don't expect him to win, but I do want him to make some noise and drive the conversation.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on March 01, 2019, 04:30:15 PM
Apparently Governor Hickenlooper (sp?) of Washington State is going to formally throw his hat in the ring next week.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Dabnasty on March 01, 2019, 04:44:24 PM
Apparently Governor Hickenlooper (sp?) of Washington State is going to formally throw his hat in the ring next week.

Both halves of that are right, sort of -

John Hickenlooper of Colorado is expected to announce & Jay Inslee of Washington State already has.



Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on March 01, 2019, 04:53:49 PM
Apparently Governor Hickenlooper (sp?) of Washington State is going to formally throw his hat in the ring next week.

Both halves of that are right, sort of -

John Hickenlooper of Colorado is expected to announce & Jay Inslee of Washington State already has.

Thanks for the correction! : - )
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Cressida on March 02, 2019, 03:00:58 AM
I suspect Inslee will mostly serve as an issue candidate. Given that climate change is the issue, if he can force that to be a prt of the discussion then I think that he will be useful. He tends to be pretty measured and even when speaking, so I just don't see him firing up the voters to get to the polls. He has generally been a good governor, but his AG (Ferguson) and prior to governors (Gregoire and Locke)  I think I liked a bit better.

I have a soft spot for Inslee since he was my congressman when I lived in the burbs. I also enjoy his manner of speaking; it's kind of hard to explain, but he comes off to me as genuine and sharp, though maybe not inspiring (so I guess we agree there). Hopefully he'll make a good impression and end up in the cabinet.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on March 03, 2019, 06:15:42 PM
Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will also be helped by state wide races. For example, if Stacey Abrams runs for Senate in Georgia in 2020, she might actually win this time around, and thereby help propel a Democratic win for president in that state.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on March 03, 2019, 06:28:34 PM
Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will also be helped by state wide races. For example, if Stacey Abrams runs for Senate in Georgia in 2020, she might actually win this time around, and thereby help propel a Democratic win for president in that state.

I really hope she runs for Senate. I was pretty bummed when she lost the governorship, especially given how close it was.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on March 03, 2019, 08:13:01 PM
Watched Bernie's rally in Brooklyn and then again in Chicago tonight. He is on fire early. He got my $27 tonight.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on March 03, 2019, 08:47:21 PM
Until I see a Democratic candidate who is interested in encouraging participation in capitalism by ordinary people instead of promising everybody to put their retirements, healthcare, and futures in the hands of the government -- a government that is currently run by Donald Trump and at one time was run by George W. Bush -- I'm going to sit things out this time around. Sorry.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on March 04, 2019, 09:25:02 AM
Until I see a Democratic candidate who is interested in encouraging participation in capitalism by ordinary people instead of promising everybody to put their retirements, healthcare, and futures in the hands of the government -- a government that is currently run by Donald Trump and at one time was run by George W. Bush -- I'm going to sit things out this time around. Sorry.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. What policies and approach would you like to see?

and @Cressida I also have a soft spot for Inslee. He is the type of person I would like to see in the Oval office.  I just wonder about his ability to generate excitement.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Glenstache on March 04, 2019, 09:31:12 AM
Looks like Hickenlooper is in.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on March 04, 2019, 12:17:35 PM
Until I see a Democratic candidate who is interested in encouraging participation in capitalism by ordinary people instead of promising everybody to put their retirements, healthcare, and futures in the hands of the government -- a government that is currently run by Donald Trump and at one time was run by George W. Bush -- I'm going to sit things out this time around. Sorry.

You can thank Obama for trying to automatically enroll workers in 401k plans, in which they have to opt out in order to no longer contribute.

I'd say the Democrats by and large encourage participation in the stock market.
You can thank the Republicans in the Congress for not taking it up.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/22/require-automatic-enrollment-in-ira-plans/

Moreover, it was the Democrats who created the CFPB, which regulate banks on behalf of consumers.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: the_fixer on March 04, 2019, 09:35:31 PM
Looks like Hickenlooper is in.
Very happy about this!

As a resident of Colorado I think he has done a great job.

My wife had the chance to ride a bike with him in an organized charity event here in Colorado and thinks highly of him.

We sat next to his speech writer on a plane a few months ago and we're really excited to discuss the possibilities of him running.

We even had a good chuckle when I recommended that he runs on an abolish the time change platform as almost everyone can get behind that :)



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

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

Biden is leaning in.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on March 07, 2019, 02:37:47 PM
It sounds crazy saying this so early, but IF Biden jumps in, this could become a three-way race with Biden, Bernie, and either Harris/Beto (if he jumps in)...

because of money!

I read where Dem experts say that it will likely take $50-$100M for a Dem candidate to get to the Iowa caucuses.

Who besides Biden, Bernie, and maybe Harris or Beto, can realistically raise that kind of money, especially in such a crowded field where donors are spreading themselves thin?

And it looks like the first Dem presidential debates will be held in June, maybe over 2 nights because of the crowded field. I guess someone could catch fire during the debate. The lower-tier people are going to have to come out swinging or the money edge will be too much.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: talltexan on March 08, 2019, 09:55:03 AM
Warren can raise that. Easily.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Nick_Miller on March 08, 2019, 10:50:18 AM
You're right. She has a good amount of money left over from Senate run. I just checked.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: YttriumNitrate on March 08, 2019, 11:07:17 AM
Sweet Jesus God!  If you want policy, here's your guy:  https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
So I finally got around to listening to the Freakanomics podcast with Yang. He seems like a guy that it would be fun to have a beer or two with while discussing economic philosophies, but goodness, he's far too direct to make it as a politician.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Johnez on March 08, 2019, 11:23:39 AM
Dang, bummed about Brown being out. Surprised about Bloomberg.

I wonder what's holding Biden back from announcing. Afraid of Bernie? Bern's raking in money and doing his thing at rallies, better announce go or no go before it's too late. Democratic party once again is jacking Bern around, once again for the fact that he's not actually a Democrat. I have a feeling 2016 is coming back to haunt Dems if Biden waits too long to go for it. Bernie's got the popular spotlight now, he's looking more and more like the lead candidate.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on March 08, 2019, 03:29:38 PM
Dang, bummed about Brown being out. Surprised about Bloomberg.

I wonder what's holding Biden back from announcing. Afraid of Bernie? Bern's raking in money and doing his thing at rallies, better announce go or no go before it's too late. Democratic party once again is jacking Bern around, once again for the fact that he's not actually a Democrat. I have a feeling 2016 is coming back to haunt Dems if Biden waits too long to go for it. Bernie's got the popular spotlight now, he's looking more and more like the lead candidate.

I kinda think Biden has missed the sweet spot to jump in.  You can wait a little bit when your name is being mentioned (and you're a former VP and Senator) as a potential candidate, but too long and I think even people who want him to run might get frustrated with what could be perceived as an unnecessary delay.

He's been serving for a long time and has had some tough things in his life.  So maybe he's just tired.  I would be.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: secondcor521 on March 08, 2019, 04:44:05 PM
I thought this was a decent article reviewing the current candidate list:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ranking-top-democratic-presidential-candidates-231734438.html

There are 14 people ranked in the article, although a few (Biden and O'Rourke and #10 Bullock) are not official candidates yet as far as I know.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Johnez on March 08, 2019, 06:50:27 PM
Good rundown, funny article though. Says Biden's supposed to announce in February and notes Bloomberg and Brown just dropped out. Checked out comments and yep-3 months old. Must be a "continuously running" article or something.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Ynari on March 09, 2019, 07:07:10 AM
Sweet Jesus God!  If you want policy, here's your guy:  https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
So I finally got around to listening to the Freakanomics podcast with Yang. He seems like a guy that it would be fun to have a beer or two with while discussing economic philosophies, but goodness, he's far too direct to make it as a politician.

Agree. I see Yang's best case scenario as a "shift the conversation" candidate - which I'm starting to think is just as important as who actually gets the nomination. The average of the whole field will influence the final candidate's positions, what they can/will campaign on, what "the people" expect, etc. If Yang can pull better the "Freedom dividend" into public consensus, and drive more conscious thought about responses to automation, I'm all for it.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Kris on March 11, 2019, 05:04:49 PM
I was talking to my DH about the 2020 candidates this weekend. And there's one criterion that attracts me to Biden that no one has, that would be particularly useful in this situation.

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

Honestly, that's not nothing.
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: Psychstache on March 11, 2019, 05:45:35 PM
Dang, bummed about Brown being out. Surprised about Bloomberg.

I wonder what's holding Biden back from announcing. Afraid of Bernie? Bern's raking in money and doing his thing at rallies, better announce go or no go before it's too late. Democratic party once again is jacking Bern around, once again for the fact that he's not actually a Democrat. I have a feeling 2016 is coming back to haunt Dems if Biden waits too long to go for it. Bernie's got the popular spotlight now, he's looking more and more like the lead candidate.

I assume the delay had to do with his team furiously trying to make sure they can preemptively quash all the #metoo skeletons he has in his closet.

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

 
Title: Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
Post by: madgeylou on March 11, 2019, 06:25:23 PM
Dang, bummed about Brown being out. Surprised about Bloomberg.

I wonder what's holding Biden back from announcing. Afraid of Bernie? Bern's raking in money and doing his thing at rallies, better announce go or no go before it's too late. Democratic party once again is jacking Bern around, once again for the fact that he's not actually a Democrat. I have a feeling 2016 is coming back to haunt Dems if Biden waits too long to go for it. Bernie's got the popular spotlight now, he's looking more and more like the lead candidate.

I assume the delay had to do with his team furiously trying too make sure they can preemptively quash all the #metoo skeletons he has in his closet.

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

I fucking hate him. 

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

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

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

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

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

I fucking hate him. 

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

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

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

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

Interesting. I didn't know about all that.

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

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

He's a mixed bag for sure.

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

The easiest way to frame this is such:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's as old as Bernie.

He's a three-time presidential race loser.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I donít agree with all of it, but very strongly agree in eliminating the death penalty and for-profit prisons, and I want the bail system massively reformed. I also think the public option is a more viable path forward for healthcare reform at this time. Perhaps single payer becomes fesable when people see that the public option isnít all about death panels and substandard medical treatment.