Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 07-20-2018, 05:05 PM
Ludovic Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 28,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
Would Al Franken have a chance? Remember him? The guy who the Democrats banished so they could have the high moral ground over something the other side cares nothing about?
It's not necessarily virtue signalling. What if Al had literally done an actual Pizzagate style ring? If they had asked him to step aside then, would everyone still be all "they're just doing that for the votes!"
  #102  
Old 07-20-2018, 05:14 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
pkbites

Let me be extremely clear: YOUR opinion is what does not count.
Wow. Just wow. Everyone's opinions count. That's how democracy works. Everyone who has a vote, that is.
  #103  
Old 07-20-2018, 05:17 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Wow. Just wow. Everyone's opinions count. That's how democracy works. Everyone who has a vote, that is.
Well, yes and no. See the GOP and the Dems are parties, who get to pick their candidates. So GOP voters opinions count as to who would be the best GOP candidate and Dem voters opinions count as to who would be the best Democrat candidate.

But GOP voters dont get a say in who would be the best Dem candidate. and vice-versa.
  #104  
Old 07-20-2018, 05:51 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Remember how you guys thought Russ Feingold was going to come back and defeat Tom Johnson?
Tell me more about this Tom Johnson. Has he ever won an election? There's certainly no current federally elected official by that name.
  #105  
Old 07-20-2018, 05:55 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Tell me more about this Tom Johnson. Has he ever won an election? There's certainly no current federally elected official by that name.
Ron Johnson.
  #106  
Old 07-20-2018, 06:03 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Wow. Just wow. Everyone's opinions count. That's how democracy works. Everyone who has a vote, that is.
Really. Just really. When deciding what candidate to run for one party's nomination not everyone's opinions count. Some not only do they not have a vote in the primary to decide which candidate but they also don't have a vote worth chasing after for the general. That's how this democratish system works.

That third of voters who LOVE Trump? The Democrats do not choose their nominee based on appealing to them. When deciding who to run they do not count. Exciting turnout among those in your camp, appealing to those who could possibly swing ... those voters count.

Really. Just really.
  #107  
Old 07-20-2018, 07:23 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,466
...just from this thread alone we can tell the biggest problem that we've got: there is no stand-out candidate (yet). The current lot range from divisive to uninspiring to wishy-washy to simply too old. Out of all the names that have been mentioned Biden is the only one that I think could go toe-to-toe with Trump on a national stage, but he's too fricken old. And i fear a campaign like this would be seriously detrimental to his health.

So who do I think would be best for the next election? Someone who has the following characteristics:

Integrity. And I mean Obama-level integrity. No skeletons in the closet. And if there are "skeletons" then they've been dealt with openly and publicly. No ammunition for the alt-right and surrogates. That won't stop "birther tactics" and the like, but it will mitigate them. Policy positions based on honestly held and well-reasoned belief and not on "what they think" will get them votes, changing positions as the wind changes.

Moxy. Won't back down from a fight. Strong support base (family, friends, etc) because the campaign will be soul-destroying, relentless, slog. Quick-witted. Smart.

Street-fighter. Its going to get dirty. I'm not saying they need to "get dirty in response." But the primary Republican weapon in the next election (as it was in the last) is the Talking Point. "The Deplorables" comment was an effective and devastating Talking Point last election. They need to be tackled head-on and destroyed, not allow them to fester and linger. Make them pivot from point to point. Turn every attack around and throw it back in their face.

A Proven Leader. Someone with a track record of being a thoughtful yet decisive leader, who commands respect not out of fear but because they earned it.

In addition to all of that, whoever gets picked won't succeed without:

100% support. Whoever gets the nomination gets the support. 100%. No crying in your milk. No voting third party. No dragging the feet. The world can't afford another 4 years of Trump. The world will not be the same if we get 4 more years of this Republican Party that has ceded control to the worst person in the world. So no fighting. Get out and spread the word and get out and vote. Follow the rules of your state, get people enrolled and get them to vote.

So ignoring the picks we've seen so far in the thread, if we were to think outside the square what are some of the names that might fit the bill?
  #108  
Old 07-20-2018, 07:56 PM
wolfman wolfman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 10,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
....
So who do I think would be best for the next election? Someone who has the following characteristics:
...
There is nothing wrong with those, but the most important characteristic is legitimacy(or at least an effective illusion of legitimacy)

Obama won because, while not perfect, he was widely enough seen as the choice of the people.

Hillary was never widely seen as anything but the result of three decades of the rich and powerful manipulating and corrupting the system for their own ambition.
  #109  
Old 07-20-2018, 08:02 PM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,171
Two thoughts:

1) All the discussion of white voters really makes me realize how racist American society is. We can't even talk about Americans without putting racial categories front and center. Oh well.

2) People said this above, but I don't think it has been stressed enough. Joe Biden will turn 78 in November of 2020. Seventy-eight. Donald Trump will be 74.

I have friends in their 80s, so I am well aware that people can lead full and stimulating lives in their mid- to late 70s and beyond, but 77 is a hard age to take on something as grueling as a year of presidential campaigning.

Trump, who carries a lot of extra weight, may well take himself out through natural causes before 2020 in any case. A lot of choleric, overweight septuagenarians who ignore their doctors' advice experience heart attacks. The 2020 R candidate may well be President Pence, riding on the coattails / sweeping up the dustheap of the late Trump's legacy.
  #110  
Old 07-20-2018, 08:02 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,928
Mark Warner.
  #111  
Old 07-20-2018, 08:17 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,655
Another approach is to play the polarization game harder than the Republicans have played it. A loud, aggressive, and extreme leftist who makes Bernie's policies look like Reagan by comparison.
  #112  
Old 07-20-2018, 08:30 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfman View Post
There is nothing wrong with those, but the most important characteristic is legitimacy(or at least an effective illusion of legitimacy)
...legitimacy isn't a characteristic. Its a narrative. Its a narrative not formed by the candidate but by campaigners, thats formed by the media, that's formed by the Russians that have and are actively trying to undermine your elections. You say it yourself: the illusion of legitimacy.

Quote:
Obama won because, while not perfect, he was widely enough seen as the choice of the people.

Hillary was never widely seen as anything but the result of three decades of the rich and powerful manipulating and corrupting the system for their own ambition.
These are simply narratives. Talking Points. The very thing I just said need to be "tackled head-on and destroyed, not allow them to fester and linger."

Obama won despite being an enemy of the people, a muslim, a dirty socialist. Hillary lost despite being the best person for the job, despite her having won the popular vote. These are talking points as well. Narratives and talking points are very easy to create and even easier to propagate. They don't even need to be true.
  #113  
Old 07-20-2018, 08:40 PM
wolfman wolfman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 10,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post

These are simply narratives. Talking Points. The very thing I just said need to be "tackled head-on and destroyed, not allow them to fester and linger."
Then I am really confused by your post. These are all Narratives and talking points as well.

Integrity.

Moxy.

Street-fighter.

A Proven Leader.
  #114  
Old 07-20-2018, 08:46 PM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
Another approach is to play the polarization game harder than the Republicans have played it. A loud, aggressive, and extreme leftist who makes Bernie's policies look like Reagan by comparison.
Nooooo. That is too much of an echo of the right-wingers that bitched that if only Romney and McCain had run further to the right they would have won. I thought it was a dumb argument then and the same holds true on the opposite end. Genuine progressives just don't have the numbers in this country to carry an election.
  #115  
Old 07-20-2018, 08:50 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfman View Post
Then I am really confused by your post. These are all Narratives and talking points as well.

Integrity.

Moxy.

Street-fighter.

A Proven Leader.
...you can't fake integrity. Go on: dig up some dirt on Obama. I'll be waiting right here while you do so.

You can't fake moxy. You either have it or your don't.

You can't fake being a street-fighter. It isn't a narrative crafted by someone else. If you get punched you punch back. If you take it and don't hit back then you don't have what it takes.

You can't be a "proven leader" unless you've proven you can be a leader.

None of these are as nebulous as "legitimacy." I dismiss your characterization of how Clinton was "widely seen" and would only put a fraction of her loss down to this. That you've embraced this narrative says everything about my point.
  #116  
Old 07-20-2018, 08:50 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
Trump, who carries a lot of extra weight, may well take himself out through natural causes before 2020 in any case. A lot of choleric, overweight septuagenarians who ignore their doctors' advice experience heart attacks.
No, that's just wishful thinking. Trump is a lifelong nonsmoker and nondrinker, he's only moderately overweight, and he's hyperactive. He moves around a lot. He's a large man, but not a sedentary one at all; he's spent his entire life pacing around rooms and he seems like the kind of person who sits down and then gets back up three minutes later and does that over and over again. Also - because he has no scruples and apparently no conscience, he probably has WAY lower overall levels of stress than the average person. He just doesn't give a fuck; never giving a fuck = lower levels of stress.

Trust me, he is the kind of guy who lives a really long time.
  #117  
Old 07-20-2018, 08:53 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,056
About Bernie Sanders:

The reason why Sanders had so many enthusiastic supporters was his personality more than his policies. He seemed super authentic, passionate, uncompromising, and energetic. I knew a lot of people who were over the moon with Sanders but barely even knew anything about what he stood for, they just thought he was an awesome guy. This sounds stupid, and ill-informed, but it cannot be discounted. There is a lot to be said for sheer charisma.
  #118  
Old 07-20-2018, 09:40 PM
wolfman wolfman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 10,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...you can't fake integrity.
So, John Kerry has no integrity or maybe the narrative about him just made it look that way ?
Quote:
You can't fake being a street-fighter. It isn't a narrative crafted by someone else. If you get punched you punch back. If you take it and don't hit back then you don't have what it takes.
Or the narrative can be that you have no maturity or self-control.

Quote:
You can't be a "proven leader" unless you've proven you can be a leader.
So George Washington maybe? Who else has "proven" to be a leader?


Quote:
I dismiss your characterization of how Clinton was "widely seen" and would only put a fraction of her loss down to this. That you've embraced this narrative says everything about my point.
It's all narrative, there is no objective reality, it's what people believe. You have to stop giving a crap about what the hard Rs and hard Ds want, they are completely irrelevant. It the third in the middle( in select states) who are the only ones who matter, and pretending otherwise is absurd failure of understanding strategy.
Its about the independents, and the leaners, discouragable enough to stay home, or go 3rd party etc.

And among that group Clinton was overwhelmingly seen as illegitimate, a fact which when combined with the quirks of the electoral college was enough to overcome the fact that the exact same group also overwhelmingly saw Trump as a miserable lying ass.
  #119  
Old 07-20-2018, 09:59 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,113
Video of John R Allen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9xSMkzXD6Q

Longer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAe5zTCOLC4

Last edited by Sage Rat; 07-20-2018 at 10:00 PM.
  #120  
Old 07-20-2018, 10:18 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfman View Post
So, John Kerry has no integrity or maybe the narrative about him just made it look that way ?
...I'm not sure of your point. Kerry did have integrity. The narrative, propagated by the swift boaters, said he did not. Kerry didn't fight back well enough against the narrative. He wasn't a street-fighter. So integrity wasn't enough.

Quote:
Or the narrative can be that you have no maturity or self-control.
But that's a narrative. Again thats my point. You can characterize anyone as anything. But actions speak louder than talking points.

Quote:
So George Washington maybe? Who else has "proven" to be a leader?
What metrics do we normally use to determine who is and isn't a "proven leader?" We use those metrics.

Quote:
It's all narrative,
It isn't all narrative.

Quote:
there is no objective reality,
:: looks around ::

I beg to differ.

Quote:
it's what people believe.
Indeed.

Quote:
You have to stop giving a crap about what the hard Rs and hard Ds want, they are completely irrelevant.
I don't give a fuck what the hard Rs and hard Ds want.

Quote:
It the third in the middle( in select states) who are the only ones who matter, and pretending otherwise is absurd failure of understanding strategy.
If they are the only ones that matter then fuck everything. Fuck it. Give up. Go home.

You can't ignore this group. But you can't become a "slave to the narrative." Yeah the last election hinged on a fraction of a vote in a few key states. But if you only focus on that handful of voters then everything else falls apart.

Quote:
Its about the independents, and the leaners, discouragable enough to stay home, or go 3rd party etc.
Its about much more than just this.

Quote:
And among that group Clinton was overwhelmingly seen as illegitimate, a fact which when combined with the quirks of the electoral college was enough to overcome the fact that the exact same group also overwhelmingly saw Trump as a miserable lying ass.
You didn't talk about "that group."

You said "the most important characteristic is legitimacy."

If your only goal in selecting the next candidate is to target "that group" then you are going to let Trump and his surrogates control the narrative. You will spend all of your resources going after a group of people who may never vote for you anyway. You throw the people who uncategorically support your candidate like black women and other people of colour under a bus.

You either win over "that group" by showing that you deserve their vote or you don't. You do that by being a candidate that has integrity, that believes in what they believe in, that can stand toe-to-toe with Trump.

Who is "legitimate?" We are two years away from the elections and we can't even pull a name out of the hat that we can all agree on. If you try and select a candidate based on "legitimacy" then you need to narrow down the list first and then see which way's the narratives start to form but we just don't have time to do that. Its a silly metric that really has no practical use. How would we apply it to some of the people listed so far? Apart from Clinton (who isn't going to run so I don't know why you bought her up) which of the candidates listed so far are not legitimate candidates?
  #121  
Old 07-20-2018, 10:25 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
No, that's just wishful thinking. Trump is a lifelong nonsmoker and nondrinker, he's only moderately overweight, and he's hyperactive. He moves around a lot. He's a large man, but not a sedentary one at all; he's spent his entire life pacing around rooms and he seems like the kind of person who sits down and then gets back up three minutes later and does that over and over again. Also - because he has no scruples and apparently no conscience, he probably has WAY lower overall levels of stress than the average person. He just doesn't give a fuck; never giving a fuck = lower levels of stress.

Trust me, he is the kind of guy who lives a really long time.
He has KFC gravy for blood, is so physically active he drives a golf cart on to the green, and is known to have a pretty wicked temper. Look at how Bush the Lesser and Obama looked after they left the White House, and they both took pretty good care of themselves.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #122  
Old 07-20-2018, 10:56 PM
wolfman wolfman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 10,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...Who is "legitimate?" We are two years away from the elections and we can't even pull a name out of the hat that we can all agree on. If you try and select a candidate based on "legitimacy" then you need to narrow down the list first and then see which way's the narratives start to form but we just don't have time to do that. Its a silly metric that really has no practical use. How would we apply it to some of the people listed so far? Apart from Clinton (who isn't going to run so I don't know why you bought her up) which of the candidates listed so far are not legitimate candidates?
Nearly anyone can be legitimate, as long as they are legitimate, It's that easy. If the Party leadership/Super delegates start stacking the deck or look like they are stacking the deck then legitimacy starts to come into question, and if they are heavily Clinton camp as well as having the deck stacked for them, it will be very ugly.

The smartest thing the Dem party could do is for every Super to pledge, long before things come into focus, that they will vote with the *popular primary vote, and have some actual consequence for breaking the pledge.

*whether it is national primary vote, or their state's primary vote might be a different best option for different voters.

Last edited by wolfman; 07-20-2018 at 10:57 PM.
  #123  
Old 07-20-2018, 11:09 PM
Happy Fun Ball Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
John Hickenlooper, governor of Colorado.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
Really?

Is that common, widely held belief? Biden scares the hell out of me. IMO he is the very definition of the same status quo that Hillary brought only in male form and definitely without Hillary's baggage and lack of trustworthiness... /shrug maybe i just talked myself into it but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...just from this thread alone we can tell the biggest problem that we've got: there is no stand-out candidate (yet). The current lot range from divisive to uninspiring to wishy-washy to simply too old. Out of all the names that have been mentioned Biden is the only one that I think could go toe-to-toe with Trump on a national stage, but he's too fricken old. And i fear a campaign like this would be seriously detrimental to his health.

So who do I think would be best for the next election? Someone who has the following characteristics:

Integrity. And I mean Obama-level integrity. No skeletons in the closet. And if there are "skeletons" then they've been dealt with openly and publicly. No ammunition for the alt-right and surrogates. That won't stop "birther tactics" and the like, but it will mitigate them. Policy positions based on honestly held and well-reasoned belief and not on "what they think" will get them votes, changing positions as the wind changes.

Moxy. Won't back down from a fight. Strong support base (family, friends, etc) because the campaign will be soul-destroying, relentless, slog. Quick-witted. Smart.

Street-fighter. Its going to get dirty. I'm not saying they need to "get dirty in response." But the primary Republican weapon in the next election (as it was in the last) is the Talking Point. "The Deplorables" comment was an effective and devastating Talking Point last election. They need to be tackled head-on and destroyed, not allow them to fester and linger. Make them pivot from point to point. Turn every attack around and throw it back in their face.

A Proven Leader. Someone with a track record of being a thoughtful yet decisive leader, who commands respect not out of fear but because they earned it.

In addition to all of that, whoever gets picked won't succeed without:

100% support. Whoever gets the nomination gets the support. 100%. No crying in your milk. No voting third party. No dragging the feet. The world can't afford another 4 years of Trump. The world will not be the same if we get 4 more years of this Republican Party that has ceded control to the worst person in the world. So no fighting. Get out and spread the word and get out and vote. Follow the rules of your state, get people enrolled and get them to vote.

So ignoring the picks we've seen so far in the thread, if we were to think outside the square what are some of the names that might fit the bill?
I still think Biden fulfills all of these criteria and I am not sure his age is really that much of a problem to stop him from getting both the nomination and winning the election. Still, you are right, he is too damn old.

I think there is one other (obvious) potential candidate that fulfills these criteria but I don't think she can win: Elizabeth Warren.

She is smart, tough, and moral. She has shown that she won't back down from a fight and also shown that she wins most of the fights she takes on. Her morals are top notch and I doubt anybody would every find evidence that she has been compromised.

But as much as I like her I don't think she can win. In the last decade I feel like my eyes have been opened on how racist and misogynistic my country is. I think any woman that runs will start with at least a 10 point deficit. Combine this with how progressive that Warren is and how much the right wing press has been working her over the last x years, and I don't think she can win a majority.

Note: I don't really think that Warren is that far from center; she is certainly closer to the center of this country than Trump and Sanders. But Fox News has been painting her as a communist as soon as she started becoming popular and if there is one thing that Faux News is good at it is spreading propaganda.

Last edited by Happy Fun Ball; 07-20-2018 at 11:10 PM.
  #124  
Old 07-20-2018, 11:15 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfman View Post
Nearly anyone can be legitimate, as long as they are legitimate, It's that easy.
...well that certainly clears things up!!!

How do we apply this standard to the candidates listed in this thread?

Quote:
If the Party leadership/Super delegates start stacking the deck or look like they are stacking the deck then legitimacy starts to come into question, and if they are heavily Clinton camp as well as having the deck stacked for them, it will be very ugly.
Oh this nonsense.

Why did you mention Clinton again? What role are you seeing her play in the next election? What is the "Clinton camp?"

Quote:
The smartest thing the Dem party could do is for every Super to pledge, long before things come into focus, that they will vote with the *popular primary vote, and have some actual consequence for breaking the pledge.
What does this have to do with legitimacy?

Quote:
*whether it is national primary vote, or their state's primary vote might be a different best option for different voters.
My question to you was "apart from Clinton (who isn't going to run so I don't know why you bought her up) which of the candidates listed so far are not legitimate candidates?"

From your answer it appears that at this stage (as I stated in my original response) we can't know who is "legitimate or not." So once again it isn't a useful metric.
  #125  
Old 07-20-2018, 11:27 PM
wolfman wolfman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 10,613
How the hell is any one supposed to say if the winner of a contest that hasn't been held yet won it legitimately? That's just fucking stupid.

It's not that hard to understand.

The most important quality of a Dem Nominee in the general is to have the appearance of being a legitimate winner, And the best way to do that is let the people decide their nominee. The worst way to do that is to stack the deck so a Clinton Crony shows up again.

Last edited by wolfman; 07-20-2018 at 11:27 PM.
  #126  
Old 07-20-2018, 11:30 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
... he's only moderately overweight ...
Not sure what sort of standard you use.

His official height and weight place him at the very top of overweight and just shy of obese (6'3" 239 lb), and that is assuming that the numbers are accurate (and clearly in pictures standing next to 6'1" Obama he is NOT 2" taller).

But one, I do not wish death even on him, and two a moderately obese 72 year old may not be the healthiest president ever but is at low risk of keeling over. Actually a 72 year old man at the lower section of obesity has a lower mortality rate than a 72 year old man who is on the thinner half of normal BMI.

Quote:
Look at how Bush the Lesser and Obama looked after they left the White House, and they both took pretty good care of themselves.
Look at anyone's picture's at 55 compared to 63 (GW Bush) and at 47 to 55 (Obama). Eight years no matter what you are doing generally takes its toll. Here is a time elapse of Brad Pitt, scroll to 45 years old (at 8:11) and look how even he ages over the next 8 years. For 8 years older they each aged well actually.
  #127  
Old 07-20-2018, 11:36 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfman View Post
How the hell is any one supposed to say if the winner of a contest that hasn't been held yet won it legitimately? That's just fucking stupid.
...this thread is about "which 2020 Democrat can defeat Trump."

I put up a list of characteristics that IMHO would be a good measure of who would and wouldn't be a good candidate for the next election.

You told me that I had it wrong, that legitimacy was much more important.

So how do we use legitimacy to help pick the next candidate?

"We can't." You tell me.

And you are saying what I'm saying is fucking stupid?

Quote:
It's not that hard to understand.
But when you post stuff like this:

Quote:
The most important quality of a Dem Nominee in the general is to have the appearance of being a legitimate winner,
It makes it obvious you don't have a clue what point I was trying to make. You don't understand my point. You've gone off on a tangent.

Quote:
And the best way to do that is let the people decide their nominee. The worst way to do that is to stack the deck so a Clinton Crony shows up again.
So to be crystal clear: you aren't talking about "legitimacy." You are still ranting and raving about Clinton. You are talking about the process. Which is an entirely legitimate discussion to have. But I don't think it belongs in this particular thread and certainly has nothing at all to do with my posts.
  #128  
Old 07-20-2018, 11:37 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,006
Sorry. Link did not drop. Here.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TxoTanN-UI
  #129  
Old 07-21-2018, 12:02 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Ron Johnson.

Yep, my bad. I had another window open where I was reading something about our Mayor Tom Barrett. I must have had the name Tom on the brain.
__________________
I got tired of coming up with last-minute desperate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people!

William Stranix
  #130  
Old 07-21-2018, 12:03 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
.
100% support. Whoever gets the nomination gets the support. 100%. No crying in your milk. No voting third party. No dragging the feet. The world can't afford another 4 years of Trump. The world will not be the same if we get 4 more years of this Republican Party that has ceded control to the worst person in the world. So no fighting. Get out and spread the word and get out and vote. Follow the rules of your state, get people enrolled and get them to vote.
Yes. And especially DO NOT spread negative news about any other Dem candidate. Keep it positive. Tell us why your candidate is better, not why ours is worse.
  #131  
Old 07-21-2018, 12:05 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...you can't fake integrity. Go on: dig up some dirt on Obama. I'll be waiting right here while you do so.
They made plenty of shit up about Obama. Birthers were only one. Secret Muslim, and many others were spread. None of it was true.
  #132  
Old 07-21-2018, 12:16 AM
wolfman wolfman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 10,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...this thread is about "which 2020 Democrat can defeat Trump."
Let me try this really slowly.
It is not 2020, it is currently 2018. There will be a passage of time between now and 2020. Occurring within that passage of time there will be a series of primaries and a convention to determine a nominee for the 2020 General election. At the time the 2020 election is held the most important quality the Democratic Party nominee for President will be the legitimacy of their position as the Nominee of the Democratic Party. If the nominee has that legitimacy, they will win, as simple as that, assuming Trump is the R Candidate.

If they do not have that legitimacy it will be another coin toss. Now I cannot guarantee anyone in particular will win at all, let alone they will win with legitimacy. I can however guarantee certain conditions that will assure they have no legitimacy. Those conditions involve having a Super-delegate out vote of the will of the people as represented by the popular vote of the Members of the democratic party. And if that overruling of the will of the people occurs for a candidate who is perceived as a crony of the Clintons, they will certainly have no legitimacy once again.


Quote:
You told me that I had it wrong, that legitimacy was much more important.
Correct, legitimacy is of overwhelming importance. And trying to game the system to get the "correct candidate qualities" is leading down a dangerous road toward telling the power brokers and favor traders to anoint another head to to to grant the crown to, which is anathema to legitimacy.

Quote:
So how do we use legitimacy to help pick the next candidate?

"We can't." You tell me.
When the hell did I say that?
I said I can't tell you if the candidate who will run after that passage of time in 2020 will have legitimacy, because that time has not passed yet.

The way to have a legitimate candidate is simply have a legitimate and fair process to select a nominee that represents the will of the people of the democratic party.
There now I have told you again "how we use legitimacy to pick the next candidate"
  #133  
Old 07-21-2018, 12:22 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfman View Post

If they do not have that legitimacy it will be another coin toss. Now I cannot guarantee anyone in particular will win at all, let alone they will win with legitimacy. I can however guarantee certain conditions that will assure they have no legitimacy. Those conditions involve having a Super-delegate out vote of the will of the people as represented by the popular vote of the Members of the democratic party.



Correct, legitimacy is of overwhelming importance. And trying to game the system to get the "correct candidate qualities" is leading down a dangerous road toward telling the power brokers and favor traders to anoint another head to to to grant the crown to, which is anathema to legitimacy.


The way to have a legitimate candidate is simply have a legitimate and fair process to select a nominee that represents the will of the people of the democratic party.
There now I have told you again "how we use legitimacy to pick the next candidate"
Note that the Superdelegates were not critical for Hillaries win. She won without them.

However, Bernie gamed the system by winning caucuses, and without them, he never would have been close.

So, in actuality, Clinton was the legit candidate.

But yeah, Rove, the Russians and the Bernie Bros all tried to show how unfair Superdelegates were, event tho they have been around for a while.
  #134  
Old 07-21-2018, 03:04 AM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
So to be crystal clear: you aren't talking about "legitimacy." You are still ranting and raving about Clinton. You are talking about the process. Which is an entirely legitimate discussion to have. But I don't think it belongs in this particular thread and certainly has nothing at all to do with my posts.
It does have to do with the problem.

Too many Democratic Party officeholders lined up behind HRC in 2016. Why?
  • Did they think she was so remarkable that it was worth endorsing the most hated woman in USA politics?
  • Did they fear the power of whatever friends the Clintons still have?
  • Did they intentionally nominate her to lose, hoping she'd finally go away?

There needs to be a justification. Failing that, we have a problem, and papering it over doesn't solve it.

There are still progressives, and there are still centrists/neoliberals; and they may have cause to work together in the future. But the neoliberals don't really want to concede anything, power or policy, to the progressives. The progressives are sick and tired of being told we can't have socialized medicine, we can't have tuition-free college, we can't have them in our lifetimes, we can't have them ever. The two sides don't trust each other and won't work together for long.

The real problem is that the Democratic Party doesn't work. It can't be trusted. The next two elections are going to be about defeating Trump, and should be about rebuilding our institutions and the postwar order. But after that? Look how quickly the Democratic Party collapsed after 2006-2008.

More horrifyingly: If the past is our guide, there is a very strong possibility that the next Democratic president will be full of forgiveness and excuses for Trump, the GOP leadership will be left in place, and no consequences will ensue. Not only will the rate of extra-judicial murders go up again, as from GWB to Obama and Obama to Trump; not only will the tax cuts be maintained; but other elements of Trumpism will be normalized. We may win the election and not save much of anything.

The country needs someone who will stand up for principle. The party needs someone who will stand on principle not only against the legacy of Trump but against that of G. W. Bush and that of Reagan. And failing that, honestly, there's a good chance that the idealists and reformers won't be there until one arises.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 07-21-2018 at 03:07 AM.
  #135  
Old 07-21-2018, 06:50 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfman View Post
Let me try this really slowly.
...no need. I understood you the first, second and third time you completely missed my point.

Quote:
It is not 2020, it is currently 2018.
Its 2018 right now, not 2020.

The thread we are participating is currently in 2018.

This thread asks the question "which 2020 Democrat can defeat Trump?"

I posed a few characteristics of what I think would be the perfect candidate to defeat Trump.

Happy Fun Ball used those characteristics to come up with a candidate that, in their humble opinion, would have some of what it would take to defeat Trump.

But you've claimed that "legitimacy" is more "important" than any of the metrics I suggested. So how can Happy Fun Ball use "legitimacy" to come up with a better candidate?

Lets pretend for a minute that "legitimacy" is the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER in deciding the next election.

How do we measure that now, in 2018?

You've told me that answer. We can't know that now. In order to find that out we have to, according to you:

Quote:
There will be a passage of time between now and 2020. Occurring within that passage of time there will be a series of primaries and a convention to determine a nominee for the 2020 General election. At the time the 2020 election is held the most important quality the Democratic Party nominee for President will be the legitimacy of their position as the Nominee of the Democratic Party. If the nominee has that legitimacy, they will win, as simple as that, assuming Trump is the R Candidate.
Do you see the part I bolded?

The part I bolded is what this thread is about. Its literally what we are discussing. Who is going to be the nominee? Lets speculate!

But "legitimacy" doesn't allow us to speculate. Because its a metric that can only be applied once we have had the primary and we've selected the nominee.

We can't use the metric. Its literally impossible to apply the metric to the current pool of candidates because we can only measure "legitimacy" after the candidates have been whittled down and one selected.

Quote:
If they do not have that legitimacy it will be another coin toss.
It doesn't have to be a coin toss. You know the process. It isn't going to change before 2020. There is a very good chance that by your standards the candidate that represents "the will of the people that vote Democrat" won't win the primary.

If that happens what are you going to do? Pack a sad? Vote for the Green Party? Not vote at all?

If the person that wins the democratic nomination is the "legitimate candidate" and they defeat Donald Trump but they don't win the popular vote: would you consider them to be "the legitimate President?" The process allows them to win, but they didn't win "the will of the people of America." So how would that sit with you?

Quote:
Now I cannot guarantee anyone in particular will win at all, let alone they will win with legitimacy. I can however guarantee certain conditions that will assure they have no legitimacy. Those conditions involve having a Super-delegate out vote of the will of the people as represented by the popular vote of the Members of the democratic party.
I don't agree with your definition of "legitimacy." Its like arguing Trump isn't the legitimate President because he didn't win the popular vote. So if we can't even agree on how to define legitimate, how can we use it as a metric to test the candidates?

How can we use it as a metric to test the candidates when we can't know it until 2020?

Quote:
And if that overruling of the will of the people occurs for a candidate who is perceived as a crony of the Clintons, they will certainly have no legitimacy once again.
This is your bias talking. You obviously don't like the Hillary. You are entitled to not like Hillary, but you dislike of Hillary is really clouding your judgement here. This has nothing to do with the discussion.

Quote:
Correct, legitimacy is of overwhelming importance.
No it isn't. As defined by you its a meaningless pointless catchphrase.

Quote:
And trying to game the system to get the "correct candidate qualities" is leading down a dangerous road toward telling the power brokers and favor traders to anoint another head to to to grant the crown to, which is anathema to legitimacy.
Give me a fucking break. I'm not trying to "game the system." What the fuck is that supposed to even mean?

We are speculating. We are guessing. We are trying to figure out who is the best person to take on Trump at the next election. There is no "dangerous road." This is an internet message board. We are having a discussion. Power brokers? Favour traders? Anointing another head to "grant the crown to?"

What the fuck are you talking about?

All I've done in this thread is say "here are some qualities that I think are important qualities to have in order to be able to defeat Trump. Who has these characteristics?"

How do you get "I'm trying to game the system" out of that?

Quote:
When the hell did I say that?
Ummmm...

Quote:
I said I can't tell you if the candidate who will run after that passage of time in 2020 will have legitimacy, because that time has not passed yet.
Exactly here.

Quote:
The way to have a legitimate candidate is simply have a legitimate and fair process to select a nominee that represents the will of the people of the democratic party.
Well tough. The process allows the democratic party to select a nominee that doesn't strictly "represent the will of the people. What is it are you going to do about that?

Quote:
There now I have told you again "how we use legitimacy to pick the next candidate"
My question to you was "how we use legitimacy to pick the next candidate from the candidates that have been mentioned in this thread."

The answer, which you have said VERY SLOWLY for me in this very response, is that we can't. Not until 2020. So everybody, lets pack it all in. This thread is closed until after the primaries, after the candidate has been selected, when we are finally able to apply the legitimacy test!
  #136  
Old 07-21-2018, 06:55 AM
Silver lining Silver lining is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 738
Quote:
charger rich I like many on this board saw no way to a Trump White House (pretty sure Trump did not either). But the fact remains that Trump tapped into some real frustration with the "staus quo" democrats. Trump also did very well with independents and many "white" working class voters that might normally vote democratic (i.e. rust belt voters).

I am actually scared to death that a man with a below average IQ (I would BET MONEY he is south of 110), a strong propsenity to lie first (and double down on that lie) and that is about as corrupt as any politician since Nixon might actually run this country for 4 more years.

So as we start to look at the 2020 democrats I have some serious concerns about who is the best candidate to beat Trump.

Joe Biden - He is far from the fresh/new Democratic face that i think will be very important to win people back.
Joe will be 78 if sworn in. He might flip PA, but he's gaffe prone with a long record in the Senate which makes him an easy target. I sort of liked Joe, 20 years ago. Now he's a little punchy. Being angry is not enough.

Quote:
Elizabeth Warren - While I personally love how motivated she is/would be to beat Trump I have some serious concerns about her ability to get any but the most progressive votes. I do not dislike her but believe this would likely be the best Trump 2020 scenario.

Yes please, Trump would be all over her. She's an angry type who falsely claims to be part Indian. Progressive types would like her, but she would not draw well in many states.

Quote:
Kamala Harris - She punches a lot of the boxes you want to see in terms of her race, gender, location (California Dollars) and I like that she was an AG.
Anyone with a D next to their name wins California. Harris is new to the senate. Probably a better gimmick type of VP pick.

Quote:
Bernie - I like a lot of what Bernie stands for (single payer, education, net neutrality, global warming, veteran support, wall street reform) but he is also a little out there on other issues for me personally and - again - he just does not come across as Presidential and would instantly scare off many middle of the aisle voters
.

Probably the best pick of the lot, too bad the DNC torpedoed him. If elected he would be 78 when sown in. Like Biden, Old, old, old. But he brings class to the ticket, something Dem's badly need. And he can probably raise money as fast as anyone.

Quote:
Cory Booker - His ties to Wall Street while not ideal for democrats might get him closer to center for some voters and I think he would be a handful for Trump in a debate! He is a fresh face and can energize the democrats but could he win?
Ties to Wall Street? Next.


Summary: With two very old men as the front-runners, and bunch of young/unproven types, you might see one person fail to get a majority for a while, which will make the long-term funding for the race more difficult for the winner not to mention in-fighting among the party. Will the DNC play favorites again? Trump has a good economic record to run on, a loyal base, and will have a better coordinated team around him. He speaks well, and still draws large crowds in the states he won. The Dem's best chance to win might be to pick their best fighter, not their best candidate. However there are very few good old warriors, and the young ones are unproven.

Last edited by Silver lining; 07-21-2018 at 07:00 AM.
  #137  
Old 07-21-2018, 06:59 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
It does have to do with the problem.

Too many Democratic Party officeholders lined up behind HRC in 2016. Why?
  • Did they think she was so remarkable that it was worth endorsing the most hated woman in USA politics?
  • Did they fear the power of whatever friends the Clintons still have?
  • Did they intentionally nominate her to lose, hoping she'd finally go away?

There needs to be a justification. Failing that, we have a problem, and papering it over doesn't solve it.

There are still progressives, and there are still centrists/neoliberals; and they may have cause to work together in the future. But the neoliberals don't really want to concede anything, power or policy, to the progressives. The progressives are sick and tired of being told we can't have socialized medicine, we can't have tuition-free college, we can't have them in our lifetimes, we can't have them ever. The two sides don't trust each other and won't work together for long.

The real problem is that the Democratic Party doesn't work. It can't be trusted. The next two elections are going to be about defeating Trump, and should be about rebuilding our institutions and the postwar order. But after that? Look how quickly the Democratic Party collapsed after 2006-2008.

More horrifyingly: If the past is our guide, there is a very strong possibility that the next Democratic president will be full of forgiveness and excuses for Trump, the GOP leadership will be left in place, and no consequences will ensue. Not only will the rate of extra-judicial murders go up again, as from GWB to Obama and Obama to Trump; not only will the tax cuts be maintained; but other elements of Trumpism will be normalized. We may win the election and not save much of anything.

The country needs someone who will stand up for principle. The party needs someone who will stand on principle not only against the legacy of Trump but against that of G. W. Bush and that of Reagan. And failing that, honestly, there's a good chance that the idealists and reformers won't be there until one arises.
...I'll take this as a vote for Hillary then?
  #138  
Old 07-21-2018, 07:01 AM
Locrian Locrian is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 3,927
I posted the CNN link of top ten candidates in the other thread on Dem 2020 nominees. Here's my breakdown, hopefully not a DEM breakdown...

1) Joe Biden - Awesome, but too old.
2) Elizabeth Warren - She's a woman. Nope.
3) Kamala Harris - see above
4) Kirstin Gillibrand - see above
5) Bernie Sanders - (spits out coffee, bills CNN for new laptop)
6) Eric Holder - Looks like Obama. Nope.
7) Steve Bullock - Meh.
8) Cory Booker Looks like Obama or a sportscaster. Nope.
9) Mitch Landrieu - Who??
10) Sherrod Brown - Who dis??

Dems have to have an incredible candidate who is a better celebrity than the Orange Turd. A woman? After last time?? Over the beloved racist/Russian apprentice? Forget that. Sanders is a joke, even if he gets the nom, it's a burnt Sienna landslide. Reason I dissed Corey and Eric is exactly what any potential deplorable will think when they see darker skin that isn't orange.

So far for me, it's Biden, who better have THE BEST running mate due to age. Problem is, to steal some votes from the Orange Lovers, it has to be a rich celebrity who's beyond outspoken, but a Democrat. Lots of luck to us.
  #139  
Old 07-21-2018, 07:58 AM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post

... Like Biden, Old, old, old. But he brings class to the ticket, something Dem's badly need. .
The Dems need someone with class? Compared to the vulgar scumbag atop the republican party? That is precious.

You're "analysis" of any Democratic candidate is to be mocked and immediately discarded. Biden = gaffe prone? Did you come up with that yourself? Booker = ties to Wall Street. OMG. Wall Street? Holy shit. Is this lazy, buzzword nonsense meant to be taken seriously?
  #140  
Old 07-21-2018, 08:44 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,145
I look back at 1992 Bill Clinton. He may not have been the perfect candidate, but he pretty much was a perfect candidate. Unlike his wife in 2016, he recognized that you RUN for president, you don't MOSEY. The Clinton (92) "Rapid response team" was amazing. When someone threw a charge at him, they had not only an answer for the charge, they used rhetorical jujitsu and turned the opponents charge into a counter attack. And they did it so well and so fast that the charge and the response were generally reported in the same media breath. Now I recognize that the world has changed since '92 (and certainly not all for the better) but that kind of approach is what I'm talking about.
  #141  
Old 07-21-2018, 09:25 AM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
I look back at 1992 Bill Clinton. He may not have been the perfect candidate, but he pretty much was a perfect candidate. Unlike his wife in 2016, he recognized that you RUN for president, you don't MOSEY. The Clinton (92) "Rapid response team" was amazing. When someone threw a charge at him, they had not only an answer for the charge, they used rhetorical jujitsu and turned the opponents charge into a counter attack. And they did it so well and so fast that the charge and the response were generally reported in the same media breath. Now I recognize that the world has changed since '92 (and certainly not all for the better) but that kind of approach is what I'm talking about.
I am curious why Hillary didn't stay with a winning method.
  #142  
Old 07-21-2018, 12:16 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
It does have to do with the problem.

Too many Democratic Party officeholders lined up behind HRC in 2016. Why?
  • Did they think she was so remarkable that it was worth endorsing the most hated woman in USA politics?
  • Did they fear the power of whatever friends the Clintons still have?
  • Did they intentionally nominate her to lose, hoping she'd finally go away?

.
She wasnt the most hated until the Kremlin and Rove started up their fake news machine.

They thought she had the best chance of winning.
  #143  
Old 07-21-2018, 12:32 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
I am curious why Hillary didn't stay with a winning method.
Russians, maybe?

Honestly, I don't see how this discussion even takes place with all we have learned about Russian intervention and the intensity with which they worked to influence public opinion against Hillary Clinton. I don't even know why she is part of this discussion.

I offered the name of Mark Warner as a good potential who would meet the criteria we seem to think is a winning combination: Not Hillary, not even a woman, white, tall, experienced, not from California, principled, is lightly raising his profile, has integrity, is quick on his feet, has a better sense of humor than with which he is generally credited, etc. Couple him up with someone like Tammy Duckworth for VP, who has a highly legitimate claim to morality and integrity, is clever enough to successfully label the idiot in the Oval as Cadet Bone Spurs, and you can't help but appeal to moderates, women, Middle America and the military folks. Bob's yer uncle.

I think the Dems are wise to not let their best candidates lead with their chins. It's much too early to worry about all this, and why give Republicans more than two years to throw shi... shade at those excellent folks, ruining their chances. You'll notice it's almost always Republicans who whine about Dems not having a "leader of the party." Dems know they have many to choose from.

A word about those super delegates. You damn right Dems use them, and for good reason, too. Democrats work hard to advance particular ideals, to define what their party stands for. Super delegates function to make sure that whatever candidate runs on their behalf represents those things. They're intended to prevent an outlier like Trump from taking over their party and their agenda. If Republicans had super delegates, there never would have been a Trump. Never forget that Bernie was well aware of all this long before he decided to run as a Dem -- presumably because he wanted the party architecture. If he didn't, he could have run as an independent.
  #144  
Old 07-21-2018, 02:22 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post

... many Democratic Party officeholders lined up behind HRC in 2016. Why?
  • Did they think she was so remarkable that it was worth endorsing the most hated woman in USA politics?
  • Did they fear the power of whatever friends the Clintons still have?
  • Did they intentionally nominate her to lose, hoping she'd finally go away?

There needs to be a justification. ...
The justification is very straightforward: the race that year was completely unlike what we are looking at for 2020. Pretty much "everyone" was very confident that if HRC ran she'd easily beat all comers. Because she was also the most respected and loved woman in USA politics and had the infrastructure in place. When one person is the presumed candidate pretty much everyone wants to jump to get on the train as soon as possible. The extreme of that of course is when an incumbent runs ... of course pretty much all of the party lines up behind them before the primary season even begins. She was just one step below that. In 2020 no one has any idea who is going to end up on top ahead of time, there is no obvious presumed or consensus nominee. That a different ball game and few want to commit to a train that may end up not even leaving the station.

Gawd are those horrible mixed metaphors! But still.
  #145  
Old 07-21-2018, 02:33 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
I am curious why Hillary didn't stay with a winning method.
More than anything else I think that WJC was not per se expected to win. In May 1992 he was polling in third place, ten points behind both Bush and Perot who were tied at 35%. When that's where your season starts you run it aggressive.

When you are the favored to win you cannot help but run a different sort of campaign.
  #146  
Old 07-21-2018, 03:19 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, yes and no. See the GOP and the Dems are parties, who get to pick their candidates. So GOP voters opinions count as to who would be the best GOP candidate and Dem voters opinions count as to who would be the best Democrat candidate.

But GOP voters dont get a say in who would be the best Dem candidate. and vice-versa.
PLEASE tell that to all the rightie clowns I see posting about the "rigged" primaries.
  #147  
Old 07-21-2018, 03:21 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, yes and no. See the GOP and the Dems are parties, who get to pick their candidates.
All citizens get a vote in the election unless disqualified.
  #148  
Old 07-21-2018, 03:25 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
All citizens get a vote in the election unless disqualified.
Usually, not in the primaries. Altho there are a few Open Primaries, generally in a primary you only get to vote for the party you are registered in.
  #149  
Old 07-21-2018, 03:27 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
All citizens get a vote in the election unless disqualified.
And "circles are round".

A statement which is about as relevant.
  #150  
Old 07-21-2018, 03:31 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,056
The page-long multi-quote micromanaged posts are getting tedious (not trying to junior mod, just.....a more compact formatting would be easier on my brain.)

Last edited by Lamoral; 07-21-2018 at 03:33 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 03:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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