Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-13-2018, 04:56 PM
dba Fred is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Well, I suppose but no reason to choose that for a benchmark. Her other run officially started January 2007.
<clipped>
Hillary was running before she could walk.
  #52  
Old 11-13-2018, 06:45 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Castro appears to be in:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...lection-987534

Man, this is going to be a crowded debate field. Given that almost ALL the candidates will be inexperienced or relatively unknown, how will they determine who is on the main debate stage? Seems like there will be about 5-6 that will be above 5% in the polls, but everyone else will be around 1%.
  #53  
Old 11-13-2018, 07:13 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Castro appears to be in:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...lection-987534

Man, this is going to be a crowded debate field. Given that almost ALL the candidates will be inexperienced or relatively unknown, how will they determine who is on the main debate stage? Seems like there will be about 5-6 that will be above 5% in the polls, but everyone else will be around 1%.
It's not the Democrats fault the the Republicans offer up such a target rich environment. Who doesn't want to be the hero who unseats Trump?
  #54  
Old 11-13-2018, 08:36 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Don't get me wrong, the more the merrier. It just creates problems for deciding who will be on the main debate stage and that in turn leads to a lot of hard feelings. I'm pretty sure Democrats don't want a coronation, they probably would love to have 5-6 viable candidates. But if it's 20, then things get a little wild. Plus it creates an opening for a crazy celebrity like Kanye West.
  #55  
Old 11-13-2018, 08:49 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,546
The field will winnow fast.

Not too hard to be able to afford to compete in Iowa and NH. Get there early and meet everyone. But those who are not already with sizable funding won't get much farther unless they've cracked the top levels in one or the other of those.
  #56  
Old 11-13-2018, 08:53 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
But before NH and IA there will be quite a few debates. That's where candidates will be crying, "the DNC is fixing the race! I'm not being heard!" It's one thing when it's Michael Avenatti. It's another entirely when it's a sitting Congressman being told he can't be on the debate stage because some supposed "rock star" who actually LOST in a Democratic wave year gets his spot instead.
  #57  
Old 11-13-2018, 08:56 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
BTW, Ojeda's getting a lot more attention than I would have thought:

This guy's got a very interesting history:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/trump-call...222008164.html

https://www.ktnv.com/news/national/r...esidential-bid

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/11/...nt/?comments=1
  #58  
Old 11-13-2018, 09:00 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,546
So what should be the method for determining who is relegated to the undercard and who not?

The GOP method was the highest on national polls got invited to the more prime time show.

Is that the fairest method?
  #59  
Old 11-13-2018, 09:25 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,759
Whoever is sponsoring the debate should decide who they're inviting and who they're not, on whatever criteria they choose, which need not be objective nor public. If the candidates who get left out feel that that's unfair, they're welcome to host their own debates, which will draw as much attention as people care to give them.
  #60  
Old 11-14-2018, 08:46 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
So what should be the method for determining who is relegated to the undercard and who not?

The GOP method was the highest on national polls got invited to the more prime time show.

Is that the fairest method?
No, but that's par for the party of "the rich get richer".
  #61  
Old 11-14-2018, 11:40 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
From what I recall Carly Fiorina was the only person who moved up to the main debate from the undercard debate. Then Trump said she was ugly.
  #62  
Old 11-14-2018, 01:27 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,523
It's not just that Clinton has said she won't run. It is that she has done nothing to contradict that. FiveThirtyEight showed this back in May, and doesn't even have her on the lists by October.

The rubric they are using is primarily bad because it is overly inclusive. But I do think they are likely a good starting point for discussing who is running.

Last edited by BigT; 11-14-2018 at 01:27 PM.
  #63  
Old 11-14-2018, 02:36 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
She herself has said she isn't running again.
Right, she did seem to indicate she'd like to serve. I suspect that means she'd serve if drafted and she'd like State back. I think she was great in State, so that's fine with me.

I can see sitreps where drafting Hillary would make sense.
  #64  
Old 11-14-2018, 02:53 PM
foolsguinea is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,828
I don't know very much about her tenure at State, except that she was a "meme" to an unusual degree. But I thought it was during Kerry's more low-profile time at Foggy Bottom that the Iran deal got finished.
  #65  
Old 11-14-2018, 05:17 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Right, she did seem to indicate she'd like to serve. I suspect that means she'd serve if drafted and she'd like State back. I think she was great in State, so that's fine with me.

I can see sitreps where drafting Hillary would make sense.
Secretary of State was a stepping stone, or place holder. She's not going back to State. No way, no how. It's all or nothing.
  #66  
Old 11-14-2018, 05:33 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
I'd be willing to bet she'd be happy to be the first female VP. That serves two purposes for the party as well: 1) a ready on Day 1 Vice President if the nominee is a little older, like Biden, and something happens to him. I don't like Hillary Clinton. At all. But I have 100% confidence in her ability to serve as President. 2) Since she'd be REALLY old in 8 years, the field would be wide open again in 2028, and I truly believe that all things being equal a wide open field is better than one where the party has a favorite.
  #67  
Old 11-14-2018, 05:36 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,422
Michael Avenatti's talk of running for the Dem nomination was bullshit to begin with, but now it's dead bullshit. Somehow I don't see someone who's just been arrested for beating up his estranged wife getting very far with Dem voters.
  #68  
Old 11-14-2018, 05:42 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The field will winnow fast.

Not too hard to be able to afford to compete in Iowa and NH. Get there early and meet everyone. But those who are not already with sizable funding won't get much farther unless they've cracked the top levels in one or the other of those.
The problem is, you could have fifteen candidates right up to Iowa and New Hampshire, then the field abruptly collapses.

As I've been saying for over a decade now, given that the Presidential campaign season starts right after the midterms these days, we really need to start weeding out some of the vanity candidates during the odd-numbered year in between the midterms and the primaries. From 2008:
Quote:
My counterintuitive solution would be to move the first few primaries and caucuses well into the year before the election. If Iowa and New Hampshire had had their caucuses and primaries in June and September of 2007, followed by Nevada and South Carolina in October and November, debates in the fall of 2007 would have been among a shrunken candidate pool - either because minor candidates would have dropped out, or because the debate organizers would have had concrete grounds to exclude them. At that point, the debates would have told us a great deal about the best 3-5 candidates, rather than a little bit each about eight or nine candidates.
  #69  
Old 11-14-2018, 05:43 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I'd be willing to bet she'd be happy to be the first female VP.
I'd take that bet in a heartbeat, but there won't be any way to test it.

And the thing is, no one would want her on the ticket anyway.

Last edited by John Mace; 11-14-2018 at 05:43 PM.
  #70  
Old 11-14-2018, 06:18 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The field will winnow fast.
Conventional wisdom suggests that but Trump got the GOP nomination with a plurality based in no small measure on that conventional wisdom failing. The GOP early primaries even produced less proportional results than is typical for the Democratic primaries thanks to higher thresholds to earn delegates and allowed allocation by Congressional districts. Democratic rules could make the lingering candidate problem worse if there aren't 2-3 clear frontrunners in the Feb primaries.

California shifting to March 3rd might help prevent a Democratic short bus of candidates getting deep into a lingering race for the plurality. Throwing that on top of the normal winnowing of Super Tuesday might make that day look like The Purge: DNC 2020. That day already demanded a lot of money for paid staff and ads without the most populous state being in the mix. It The alternative is a higher chance of contested convention. That's a lot of delegates being selected early. If there's not a clear front-runner after that day proportional allocation can make it hard to ever reach a majority to secure a first ballot nomination. The chance of a contested convention might keep those mathematically eliminated in the race to try and prevent a first ballot majority and hope for winning at the convention. Both Cruz and Kasich continued in the 2016 GOP primary after being eliminated from first ballot contention so it's not like we haven't seen it before.

If that alternative comes to pass a lot of people might suddenly discover that the DNC rule change did not get rid of superdelegates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Is that the fairest method?
The GOP method was effectively drawing straws for the last slot or two in the main debate. At the margin, there wasn't a statistically significant difference in the polls between someone who just made the main debate and someone who didn't. In that way, I would call it very fair. It might not be a useful way to help select the best candidate.

Last edited by DinoR; 11-14-2018 at 06:19 PM.
  #71  
Old 11-14-2018, 06:26 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,985
Well, it looks like it won't be Michael Avenatti. (Reuters)

Arrested on suspicion of domestic violence.

Not that I wanted it to be.

But yikes! If true, does it get more ironic?
  #72  
Old 11-14-2018, 10:56 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Michael Avenatti's talk of running for the Dem nomination was bullshit to begin with, but now it's dead bullshit. Somehow I don't see someone who's just been arrested for beating up his estranged wife getting very far with Dem voters.
Just because he was arrested doesn't mean it's true.

https://www.ibtimes.com/michael-aven...olence-2732783

Remember how Stormy Daniels was arrested under suspicious circumstances. Time to get out the ole bullshit detector.
  #73  
Old 11-14-2018, 11:06 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
I might regret this -- I probably will -- but I am becoming intrigued by the possibility of a Richard Ojeda campaign for president. This guy is what I have envisioned as being as the prototype presidential candidate: a social moderate but tough-as-nails fighter for the middle class, and an incontrovertible American patriot. Although he lost West Virginia, he went toe-to-toe against a conservative, which isn't easy to do in Mountaineer country these days.
  #74  
Old 11-14-2018, 11:27 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,557
Contrary to what many assume, I think some people run for President, at least in part, out of a sense of duty. Sure it's thrilling to sit in the big chair, but if Biden runs it won't be for the thrill. It will be out of fear that no one else can beat Trump. Same goes for Hillary, though this cycle her sense of duty will tell her NOT to run.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Beginning with FDR, almost every single President elected has been either an incumbent Prez or Vice Prez or a national figure of great charisma long before the election. (Truman, LBJ, Nixon, and Bush-41 had served as V.P. so are omitted from the following list):
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt Governor of the largest state; had acquired national recognition by running for Vice Pres. in 1920.
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower Among other positions, he had been Supreme Commander for the liberation of Western Europe. Truman had offered him the job of POTUS four years earlier.
  • John F. Kennedy a very charismatic Senator and war hero. In 1956 he finished 2nd in the balloting for Vice Pres. at the DNC.
  • Jimmy Carter Governor of a largish state, noted for his support of civil rights; projected unusually strong integrity.
  • Ronald Reagan big state Governor, very popular nationwide; had run for President as early as 1968.
  • Bill Clinton Governor with successful programs, had served as chairman of the National Governors Association, and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council; gave the opening-night speech at 1988 DNC.
  • George W. Bush, Donald J. Trump both had strong name recognition nation-wide but are unworthy of further discussion: the 21st-century GOP is happy to run mediocrities.
  • Barack Obama very charismatic Senator (nominated by an unprecedented margin) who helped drive significant legislation; delivered an "electrifying" keynote address at the 2004 DNC. Here's a newspaper article from 1990 quoting one colleague: "I thought, 'This guy sounds like he's president of the country already;' I've never met anyone who could leave that impression after only five minutes."
With few exceptions, everyone on this list was a superstar of great achievement and/or charisma.

But how about the present crop? Does Gillibrand belong on this list? In the debate I linked to yesterday, she was not a top speaker her opponent probably "won" the debate. She'll be easy to brand as a "flip-flopper." (In the debate she solemnly promised to serve 6 more years in the Senate. Just a few weeks later she practically told Stephen Colbert she was running for President.) To compare her with an Obama or even a Carter is laughable.

But I'm not trying to pick on Gillibrand. I don't see any strong candidate.
  #75  
Old 11-14-2018, 11:38 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Michael Avenatti's talk of running for the Dem nomination was bullshit to begin with, but now it's dead bullshit. Somehow I don't see someone who's just been arrested for beating up his estranged wife getting very far with Dem voters.
I'm sorry. I missed that you had already posted this.

I'm not an Avanatti for Prez fan, but neither do I want to see him railroaded by some Roger Stone-style smear.
  #76  
Old 11-14-2018, 11:55 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Contrary to what many assume, I think some people run for President, at least in part, out of a sense of duty. Sure it's thrilling to sit in the big chair, but if Biden runs it won't be for the thrill. It will be out of fear that no one else can beat Trump. Same goes for Hillary, though this cycle her sense of duty will tell her NOT to run.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Beginning with FDR, almost every single President elected has been either an incumbent Prez or Vice Prez or a national figure of great charisma long before the election. (Truman, LBJ, Nixon, and Bush-41 had served as V.P. so are omitted from the following list):
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt Governor of the largest state; had acquired national recognition by running for Vice Pres. in 1920.
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower Among other positions, he had been Supreme Commander for the liberation of Western Europe. Truman had offered him the job of POTUS four years earlier.
  • John F. Kennedy a very charismatic Senator and war hero. In 1956 he finished 2nd in the balloting for Vice Pres. at the DNC.
  • Jimmy Carter Governor of a largish state, noted for his support of civil rights; projected unusually strong integrity.
  • Ronald Reagan big state Governor, very popular nationwide; had run for President as early as 1968.
  • Bill Clinton Governor with successful programs, had served as chairman of the National Governors Association, and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council; gave the opening-night speech at 1988 DNC.
  • George W. Bush, Donald J. Trump both had strong name recognition nation-wide but are unworthy of further discussion: the 21st-century GOP is happy to run mediocrities.
  • Barack Obama very charismatic Senator (nominated by an unprecedented margin) who helped drive significant legislation; delivered an "electrifying" keynote address at the 2004 DNC. Here's a newspaper article from 1990 quoting one colleague: "I thought, 'This guy sounds like he's president of the country already;' I've never met anyone who could leave that impression after only five minutes."
With few exceptions, everyone on this list was a superstar of great achievement and/or charisma.

But how about the present crop? Does Gillibrand belong on this list? In the debate I linked to yesterday, she was not a top speaker her opponent probably "won" the debate. She'll be easy to brand as a "flip-flopper." (In the debate she solemnly promised to serve 6 more years in the Senate. Just a few weeks later she practically told Stephen Colbert she was running for President.) To compare her with an Obama or even a Carter is laughable.

But I'm not trying to pick on Gillibrand. I don't see any strong candidate.
That's because you haven't seen anybody yet. It hasn't started yet. We're in a fairly unique position in history, where there will be a lot of people who wouldn't have otherwise considered running for president taking a serious look at the brass ring, simply because of the abomination currently sleeping in the WH. There's gonna be a grand buffet of candidates, I reckon, stepping up to the big stage. No one's going to hang back this time because a Hillary-type is there to be crowned.

One reason the Democrats did as well as they did up and down the ballot last week is because there were really good candidates up and down ballot. That means really good people were stepping up to get this done. Do you see any reason to believe that sort of thing will suddenly stop at the presidential level?

Now I'm not saying that the Democrats are a shoe-in in 2020, but there's absolutely no reason to be despondent because you don't currently know who the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee will be.

Resume doesn't matter much any more. Name recognition doesn't matter much right now. What matters is who can capture the public's attention and dollars once this thing starts rolling. You simply can't know who that will be at this stage. So of course you don't see any strong candidate. But you will.
  #77  
Old 11-15-2018, 12:04 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
That's because you haven't seen anybody yet. It hasn't started yet. We're in a fairly unique position in history, where there will be a lot of people who wouldn't have otherwise considered running for president taking a serious look at the brass ring, simply because of the abomination currently sleeping in the WH. There's gonna be a grand buffet of candidates, I reckon, stepping up to the big stage. No one's going to hang back this time because a Hillary-type is there to be crowned.

One reason the Democrats did as well as they did up and down the ballot last week is because there were really good candidates up and down ballot. That means really good people were stepping up to get this done. Do you see any reason to believe that sort of thing will suddenly stop at the presidential level?

Now I'm not saying that the Democrats are a shoe-in in 2020, but there's absolutely no reason to be despondent because you don't currently know who the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee will be.

Resume doesn't matter much any more. Name recognition doesn't matter much right now. What matters is who can capture the public's attention and dollars once this thing starts rolling. You simply can't know who that will be at this stage. So of course you don't see any strong candidate. But you will.
Very well said, 100%.
  #78  
Old 11-15-2018, 12:37 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
That's because you haven't seen anybody yet. It hasn't started yet.
Perhaps. But you totally missed my point, which was that by this point in the cycle the eventual winner of earlier elections was already a nationally known personality of great achievement and/or charisma.

Obama was attracting gasps of awe long before 2006. Bill Clinton had charisma, achievement, and national stature before 1990. Besides the obvious {Clinton, Gore, Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, perhaps Cuomo} who do the D's have of such stature and charisma? If you mention names like Harris, Gillibrand, Booker, I'm afraid I'll need to ask for a cite on your dictionary definitions of "charisma, achievement, and national stature" and "gasps of awe."
__________________
Some or all of the above statements may be intended as sarcastic.
.
andros had more faith in an American jury than I had; and he was right. I'm happy to lose a bet and hope this trend continues.
  #79  
Old 11-15-2018, 12:55 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,557
Follow-up:

Jimmy Carter "came out of nowhere" to win the Presidency in 1976 and may be an exception to the rule I just stated. But he had a special charisma, and projected morality and sincerity. This was what the country was looking for then. I didn't follow politics in 1975-1976 but (though hind-sight is 20-20) I wonder if some who listened to Carter knew right away that "He was the guy."

Do any of the present crop of candidates have a special charisma? a special message or vision? (A message more than just anti-Trump.) Does any project, like Carter, "I am not the usual politician"? I've been clicking on speeches by the candidates and haven't found it. (Maybe Julian Castro? But support for him hasn't caught on at SDMB.)

Bill McRaven has the achievement that, IMHO, would catapult him to the top if he ran. But apparently his disease is too serious for him to run.
__________________
Some or all of the above statements may be intended as sarcastic.
.
andros had more faith in an American jury than I had; and he was right. I'm happy to lose a bet and hope this trend continues.
  #80  
Old 11-15-2018, 02:53 AM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I might regret this -- I probably will -- but I am becoming intrigued by the possibility of a Richard Ojeda campaign for president. This guy is what I have envisioned as being as the prototype presidential candidate: a social moderate but tough-as-nails fighter for the middle class, and an incontrovertible American patriot. Although he lost West Virginia, he went toe-to-toe against a conservative, which isn't easy to do in Mountaineer country these days.
Seriously? The guy who looked at Trump in the run-up to the 2016 election, was fine with what he saw because he thought Trump could bring back coal? That guy? The guy that thought that the ridiculous notion of 'bringing back coal' was more important than how obvious it was that Trump wasn't fit for office? That guy?

If he really and seriously though that, he's Palin-level stupid. If he didn't think that and still voted for Trump, he's beyond Palin-level stupid. He's a non-starter.

He voted for Trump. He is disqualified from any Democratic ticket, and should be disqualified from any elected position above 'dog catcher'.

He didn't just vote for a Republican. He voted for Trump.
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think hiring a pro to do the job is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur...

Last edited by DragonAsh; 11-15-2018 at 02:55 AM.
  #81  
Old 11-15-2018, 06:01 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Bill Clinton had charisma, achievement, and national stature before 1990. Besides the obvious {Clinton, Gore, Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, perhaps Cuomo} who do the D's have of such stature and charisma?
Michelle Obama.
  #82  
Old 11-15-2018, 06:14 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
Seriously? The guy who looked at Trump in the run-up to the 2016 election, was fine with what he saw because he thought Trump could bring back coal? That guy? The guy that thought that the ridiculous notion of 'bringing back coal' was more important than how obvious it was that Trump wasn't fit for office? That guy?

If he really and seriously though that, he's Palin-level stupid. If he didn't think that and still voted for Trump, he's beyond Palin-level stupid. He's a non-starter.

He voted for Trump. He is disqualified from any Democratic ticket, and should be disqualified from any elected position above 'dog catcher'.

He didn't just vote for a Republican. He voted for Trump.
I get that, but I can be okay with someone who voted for Trump as a way of protesting the system and protesting the Democratic party. Someone who votes for Trump now? No way, but someone who voted for Trump (and against Hillary) in 2016 and thought 'Let's see what happens?'...I obviously disagree with it, but it's a forgivable sin. And I don't think Ojeda was voting to protect coal as much as he was voting to bring attention to the plight of his community. West Virginia is potentially a very good case study on how to bring rural whites back into the Democratic party, and if Dems are going to really succeed at all levels, they need to win over some of those voters. I think Ojeda can win over urban and suburban voters with his message and his grit. I'm not necessarily saying he's my top choice, and I won't really know how I feel about him until he starts up his campaign.
  #83  
Old 11-15-2018, 07:01 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,763
Once the Primary actually gets rolling, any Democratic candidate that supported Trump should be rightfully ridiculed and booted.
  #84  
Old 11-15-2018, 07:57 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Once the Primary actually gets rolling, any Democratic candidate that supported Trump should be rightfully ridiculed and booted.
If it were just any candidate, yes, but this is also the guy who challenged a regressive governor in a state with a mostly regressive legislature and spearheaded a major union victory for teachers. And in doing so, he also inspired teachers' unions in other very red states like Oklahoma. Missouri also rejected a right-to-work law, which isn't necessarily Ojeda's doing, but he helped pump some serious life into unions, which have been dying for decades. He killed the meme of the lazy, useless union member and turned the conversation into one about organized labor can defend the working class and how the progressives can win with organized labor.

Last edited by asahi; 11-15-2018 at 07:58 AM.
  #85  
Old 11-15-2018, 08:36 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Perhaps. But you totally missed my point, which was that by this point in the cycle the eventual winner of earlier elections was already a nationally known personality of great achievement and/or charisma.

Obama was attracting gasps of awe long before 2006. Bill Clinton had charisma, achievement, and national stature before 1990. Besides the obvious {Clinton, Gore, Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, perhaps Cuomo} who do the D's have of such stature and charisma? If you mention names like Harris, Gillibrand, Booker, I'm afraid I'll need to ask for a cite on your dictionary definitions of "charisma, achievement, and national stature" and "gasps of awe."
One of my points was that resume and name recognition are largely moot. The guideposts laid by previous presidential cycles are being wiped out, if they're not largely gone already. Cultural shifts have changed how campaigns are run throughout our 200+ year history, and it's happened again. The election of Donald Trump, the advent of social media, memes, 24-hour newsertainment, super PACS, et al doesn't necessarily mean we have to look to campaigns 20+ years ago for how things are done now.

And frankly, I think you overestimate Bill Clinton's popularity and love among the populace prior to his actual run for the presidency. From what I remember his only national exposure was a very poorly-received long-winded speech at the DNC in '88. Other than that, he was a small-state governor that most people didn't think much about. He was charismatic, but people didn't know that at this point in 1990.
  #86  
Old 11-15-2018, 08:43 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Perhaps. But you totally missed my point, which was that by this point in the cycle the eventual winner of earlier elections was already a nationally known personality of great achievement and/or charisma.

Obama was attracting gasps of awe long before 2006.
And I'll have to ask for your dictionary definition of "long." Because his only other exposure to a national audience that drew praise was a mere two years prior, when he was a state senator, at the DNC. Once he actually hit the Senate, he wasn't wowing anyone on a national stage. It's not like he had years of inspiration and leadership under his belt here.
  #87  
Old 11-15-2018, 09:12 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I get that, but I can be okay with someone who voted for Trump as a way of protesting the system and protesting the Democratic party. Someone who votes for Trump now? No way, but someone who voted for Trump (and against Hillary) in 2016 and thought 'Let's see what happens?'...I obviously disagree with it, but it's a forgivable sin. And I don't think Ojeda was voting to protect coal as much as he was voting to bring attention to the plight of his community. West Virginia is potentially a very good case study on how to bring rural whites back into the Democratic party, and if Dems are going to really succeed at all levels, they need to win over some of those voters. I think Ojeda can win over urban and suburban voters with his message and his grit. I'm not necessarily saying he's my top choice, and I won't really know how I feel about him until he starts up his campaign.
I have a sneaky suspicion you look at his wiki picture and envision him as the military strongman of your dreams. There is no way in hell this guy is winning the primary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
And I'll have to ask for your dictionary definition of "long." Because his only other exposure to a national audience that drew praise was a mere two years prior, when he was a state senator, at the DNC. Once he actually hit the Senate, he wasn't wowing anyone on a national stage. It's not like he had years of inspiration and leadership under his belt here.
Definitely some retconning going on with that list.
  #88  
Old 11-15-2018, 10:14 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Beginning with FDR, almost every single President elected has been either an incumbent Prez or Vice Prez or a national figure of great charisma long before the election. (Truman, LBJ, Nixon, and Bush-41 had served as V.P. so are omitted from the following list):
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt — Governor of the largest state; had acquired national recognition by running for Vice Pres. in 1920.
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower — Among other positions, he had been Supreme Commander for the liberation of Western Europe. Truman had offered him the job of POTUS four years earlier.
  • John F. Kennedy — a very charismatic Senator and war hero. In 1956 he finished 2nd in the balloting for Vice Pres. at the DNC.
  • Jimmy Carter — Governor of a largish state, noted for his support of civil rights; projected unusually strong integrity.
  • Ronald Reagan — big state Governor, very popular nationwide; had run for President as early as 1968.
  • Bill Clinton — Governor with successful programs, had served as chairman of the National Governors Association, and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council; gave the opening-night speech at 1988 DNC.
  • George W. Bush, Donald J. Trump — both had strong name recognition nation-wide but are unworthy of further discussion: the 21st-century GOP is happy to run mediocrities.
  • Barack Obama — very charismatic Senator (nominated by an unprecedented margin) who helped drive significant legislation; delivered an "electrifying" keynote address at the 2004 DNC. Here's a newspaper article from 1990 quoting one colleague: "I thought, 'This guy sounds like he's president of the country already;' I've never met anyone who could leave that impression after only five minutes."
Bolding mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Follow-up:

Jimmy Carter "came out of nowhere" to win the Presidency in 1976 and may be an exception to the rule I just stated. But he had a special charisma, and projected morality and sincerity. This was what the country was looking for then. I didn't follow politics in 1975-1976 but (though hind-sight is 20-20) I wonder if some who listened to Carter knew right away that "He was the guy."
Jimmy Carter was unquestionably NOT "a national figure of great charisma long before the election." He spoke at my college in the fall of 1975, and at that time, few Americans had any idea who the fuck he was.

And either he wasn't all that charismatic (which would be my assessment), or his charisma lasted just long enough to get him elected. Try to find news stories from 1977-1978 that mention his charisma. Good luck!

Carter's definitely an exception to your 'rule.'

[ETA: And then there's] Shrubby. Was he "a national figure of great charisma" by November 1998? No, he wasn't. He really only became well known to the larger public during 1999. Was he charismatic? Only by a very low standard that anyone who's been able to win statewide office in a decent-sized state could meet.

So out of the last 12 cycles, we've got 6 where either an incumbent President won re-election or an incumbent veep got elected President (1972, 1984, 1988, 1996, 2004, 2012), 4 where the winner was arguably "a national figure of great charisma long before the election" (1980, 1992, 2008, 2016), and 2 where the winner unquestionably didn't fit that definition.

So this is hardly an argument that Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, etc. can't win if nominated.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 11-15-2018 at 10:15 AM.
  #89  
Old 11-15-2018, 10:28 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Follow-up:

Jimmy Carter "came out of nowhere" to win the Presidency in 1976 and may be an exception to the rule I just stated. But he had a special charisma, and projected morality and sincerity. This was what the country was looking for then. I didn't follow politics in 1975-1976 but (though hind-sight is 20-20) I wonder if some who listened to Carter knew right away that "He was the guy."

Do any of the present crop of candidates have a special charisma? a special message or vision? (A message more than just anti-Trump.) Does any project, like Carter, "I am not the usual politician"? I've been clicking on speeches by the candidates and haven't found it. (Maybe Julian Castro? But support for him hasn't caught on at SDMB.)

Bill McRaven has the achievement that, IMHO, would catapult him to the top if he ran. But apparently his disease is too serious for him to run.
Like most candidates, Jimmy Carter was a candidate made for the times. Americans were so repulsed by what they viewed as a lack of ethics and decency in the White House that they wanted someone who would fill that void - Carter was made for that role.

Four years later, voters were sick of hearing an American president tell them what the country's, and his, limitations were in handling the economy and matters of national security. Reagan fixed that with his confidence and assertiveness.

Americans were tired of the establishment and pragmatist caretakers, so they voted for Trump to shock the system. I suspect that in 2020, there will be a demand for a return to decency, ethics, and competence. It's just a matter of whether progressive voters can put forward a candidate who can overcome Trump's base. The right candidate could be a familiar name or could come out of nowhere.
  #90  
Old 11-15-2018, 10:38 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Bill Clinton had charisma, achievement, and national stature before 1990.
I'm sorry, but this is simply untrue. During the 1992 primaries the candidates were collectively referred to as 'The Seven Dwarves' because they had so little stature and national regard. That's not to say they weren't known, but they weren't considered national-level actors.

Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown, Larry Agran, Bob Kerrey, Tom Harkin, Doug Wilder, Tom Laughlin, Eugene McCarthy (for fuck's sake).

Arguably, Clinton might not make the top three, there. Harkin, Kerrey and Brown had a lot of miles and prominence. Certainly more than Clinton at that point.

Heck, by 1992, Clinton was most famous nationally for absolutely bombing his 1988 DNC speech in which he went on for more than his allotted time and losing his audience. Sort of an 'anti-Obama 2004' thing.

Clinton was really known as the wunderkind he'd won the Governor's office in Arkansas, lost it and then won it again. Nothing more. If he appears as a hypercharismatic speechmaker in hindsight, we have to acknowledge that's what it is...hindsight.
  #91  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:23 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
(A message more than just anti-Trump.)
I will, however, utterly agree with this. If HRC made any real mistake, it was focusing too much on Trump and not on her message. A lot of it seemed to be 'Jeez, this guy is an asshole, can you believe it?' and not on getting her own message out.

The next one, whomever it might be, should focus on vision, optimism and the heart of the middle class. Leave the attacks and whispering campaigns to surrogates that can be disclaimed if needed. It's not like people won't KNOW he's an asshole. It's part of his damn brand, really. The candidate should be the good guy. The others can be the bad guys.
  #92  
Old 11-15-2018, 01:08 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
And the thing is, no one would want her on the ticket anyway.
Exactly. I wouldn't even want her in the convention hall. Any trace of 2016 should be scrubbed from the 2020 campaign like vomit from an Ash Wednesday sidewalk.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #93  
Old 11-15-2018, 01:58 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It can be pretty safely assumed that anyone declaring this far in advance is a crank candidate. I mean, the game basically starts now that the midterms are over and serious people are quietly gauging and building their support and resources.

At this point, I want a whole lot of crank candidates to declare (Even Hillary!) and no serious candidates at all. The serious ones should wait until just before the deadline to submit their names, which is when the cranks should all drop out.

Because you know the Republican Hate Machine will spin up, and vilify anyone they think might be on the ticket in 2020. It's what did in Hillary last time, after all. So I want to minimize the amount of time serious candidates are exposed to this type of propaganda, while maximizing the wastage of such propaganda on candidates who really don't plan to run.

Sometimes, you really do need to take one for the team. This is probably the best service Hillary could do for the Democratic Party right now.
  #94  
Old 11-15-2018, 02:00 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Michelle Obama.
Nope. She has PRESENCE. People like who she is, and they like how she handles public events. She is not renowned for her stump speaking. She is competent, but unless she has policy chops, there's not going to be anything behind her speeches other than her ability to deliver them, which is nowhere near the ability of Bill Clinton or her husband.
  #95  
Old 11-15-2018, 02:03 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I might regret this -- I probably will -- but I am becoming intrigued by the possibility of a Richard Ojeda campaign for president. This guy is what I have envisioned as being as the prototype presidential candidate: a social moderate but tough-as-nails fighter for the middle class, and an incontrovertible American patriot. Although he lost West Virginia, he went toe-to-toe against a conservative, which isn't easy to do in Mountaineer country these days.
He's the Jim Webb of this cycle but Webb was a Senator. But it's also possible Ojeda will do better simply because many Democrats realize they probably won't win if they can't win a good percentage of white working class voters. And unlike Webb, he has a compelling biography(grandson of illegal immigrants). And having Latino roots might make his message more palatable than a guy who has written books extolling the Scotch-Irish.
  #96  
Old 11-15-2018, 02:16 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Michelle Obama.
Maybe give her a cabinet office, like Health and Human Services. After 4 years of that, maybe more.
  #97  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:09 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
I'm sorry, but this is simply untrue. During the 1992 primaries the candidates were collectively referred to as 'The Seven Dwarves' because they had so little stature and national regard. That's not to say they weren't known, but they weren't considered national-level actors.

Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown, Larry Agran, Bob Kerrey, Tom Harkin, Doug Wilder, Tom Laughlin, Eugene McCarthy (for fuck's sake).

Arguably, Clinton might not make the top three, there. Harkin, Kerrey and Brown had a lot of miles and prominence. Certainly more than Clinton at that point.

Heck, by 1992, Clinton was most famous nationally for absolutely bombing his 1988 DNC speech in which he went on for more than his allotted time and losing his audience. Sort of an 'anti-Obama 2004' thing.

Clinton was really known as the wunderkind he'd won the Governor's office in Arkansas, lost it and then won it again. Nothing more. If he appears as a hypercharismatic speechmaker in hindsight, we have to acknowledge that's what it is...hindsight.
Thanks for saying this, JC. That was my recollection too, but I didn't feel sure enough of it to include it with my earlier post.

A few things I do remember from that year's primary/convention season:

1) It took for-fucking-ever for Clinton to win out over the rest of that less-than-impressive crew. They were still duking it out in April.

2) Even after the primaries were over, Clinton, Bush, and Perot all had ~30% support in the polls.

3) It took Perot dropping out of the race right before the Dem convention to finally give Clinton the boost that would finally give him a real lead.
  #98  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:29 PM
foolsguinea is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Bill McRaven has the achievement that, IMHO, would catapult him to the top if he ran. But apparently his disease is too serious for him to run.
If you consider Bill McRaven a more credible contender than Betsy Warren, who has the name recognition and the following, something is wrong somewhere. I really hope it's just you.
  #99  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:49 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,759
Ojeda hasn't been fighting for the middle class. He's been fighting for an industry that is killing the middle class. Literally killing. You cannot be for both coal and the middle class.
  #100  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:52 PM
foolsguinea is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,828
I think it's hilarious that septimus thinks that Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or Barry Obama had well-established national stature and name recognition two years out. Jimmy Carter was yet to meet America as the post-Watergate outsider. Bubba Clinton wasn't even yet known as the too-far-right dork who was trying to pull ahead of Paul Tsongas. Barry Obama was new, so new we didn't know what part of Africa an "Obama" came from.

And at this point in the cycle, I think Republicans wanted Jeb, not Dubya, if one of Poppy Bush's sons were to run.

It may be that when it came to events like nominating conventions, the Clinton-Democratic Party didn't do a good job of lifting up rising stars outside the family, for fear of creating a challenger to Mama Hillary.

But freaking Amy Klobuchar and Tammy Baldwin have higher overall stature now than Dubya, Obama, Bubba, or Jimmy Carter did at this point in those cycles, and their reps are two heads shorter than Betsy Warren's.

And yes, I still think it will be a woman.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 11-15-2018 at 03:53 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017