Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 10544 times)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3741
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #50 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.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 467
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #51 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.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #52 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.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2019, 10:49:03 AM by Mississippi Mudstache »

the_fixer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 476
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #53 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


FIRE@50

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Maryland
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #54 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

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.

YttriumNitrate

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #55 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.

FIRE@50

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Maryland
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #56 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?

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3721
  • Age: 28
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #57 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.

YttriumNitrate

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #58 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.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #59 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.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2501
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #60 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.

FIRE@50

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Maryland
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #61 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.

Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 231
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #62 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.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #63 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. 

YttriumNitrate

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #64 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.

Hula Hoop

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Location: Italy
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #65 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.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #66 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, 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.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3741
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #67 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.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #68 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.

secondcor521

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #69 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, 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.

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
  • Location: NC
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #70 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.   

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #71 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.

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
  • Location: USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #72 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.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #73 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.

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #74 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.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #75 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.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 907
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #76 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.

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
  • Location: USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #77 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.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Location: MA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #78 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.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3741
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #79 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.

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
  • Location: USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #80 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.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3741
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #81 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.

Blueberries

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #82 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.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Location: MA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #83 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. 

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #84 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.

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #85 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.





Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #86 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.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 847
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #87 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.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 06:45:50 AM by Nick_Miller »

SnipTheDog

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #88 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.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #89 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.

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. 

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2048
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #90 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.

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.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1438
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #91 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.

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.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3741
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #92 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.

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.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Location: MA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #93 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

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. 

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #94 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.

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.

Spiritual_Lobotomy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #95 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. 

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 847
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #96 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.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1331
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #97 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.

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
 
« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 08:12:26 PM by Poundwise »

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 907
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #98 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 ?

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #99 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.

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.