Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:53 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
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.
I absolutely believe McRaven could be as credible a contender as Elizabeth Warren if he decided to get in. The name recognition Warren has is as much a liability as it is a benefit at this point.
  #102  
Old 11-15-2018, 04:37 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
The name recognition Warren has is as much a liability as it is a benefit at this point.


Which is what I'm talking about. Anyone who declares this early will get the same treatment. Two full years of Trump's insulting nicknames and lying tweets, two years of being "The second most liberal person in Congress". Two years of "gun grabbing" from the NRA, two years of "Tax and spend socialist" from the GOP, two years of "Death panels and socialized medicine" from the insurance industry.

Is there anyone who could withstand that?

Put up a few scapegoats to take the hit for the real candidates.
  #103  
Old 11-15-2018, 04:45 PM
xenophon41's Avatar
xenophon41 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere up country.
Posts: 4,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
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.
This is the thing that irritates me most about how the 2016 Presidential race was reported. That's certainly the impression consumers of political media quite reasonably got from the HRC campaign coverage, but I don't believe it's accurate.

If you look at transcripts of any random speech she gave or presser she held, before and after Trump started locking up the GOP nomination, you'll find 80% campaign narrative and policy talk (if not a higher percentage), with the rest of her time spent dealing (as she was forced to do) with the faux scandals and a smaller bit of time delivering criticism of her opponent. Her campaign website was broad and explicit regarding policies and issues, and focused on her inclusive message.

Unfortunately, the 'scandal' talk, the [accurate] put downs of Trump and provocative phrases vigorously separated from their contexts like "we're going to put a lot of [coal workers] out of work" and "basket of deplorables" got significantly more reporting attention than her boring detailed policy positions and that trite "Stronger Together" stuff she was undeniably trying to 'get out' to the public.

Blame HRC if you must for failing to deliver her message strongly enough for the press to spend time on, or for not making it interesting enough for the consumers of political news, but I don't see much evidence that was through any lack of focus or effort on her part.


Moving on, I'm a bit more hopeful about political coverage for 2020. I don't know if the Democratic candidate will actually face a similar problem. I'm pretty sure many commentators and analysts will be tempted to frame the Democratic message as an "anti-Trumpism" backlash regardless of whatever the campaign has crafted, and they'll look for the campaign soundbytes and random comments from supporters and surrogates that support this narrative. They'll also over report any Dem misstatements and faux pas while giving less coverage to DJT for his usual lies and blatherings, as those are just expected.

But I suspect that the press in general will not be easily be goaded or baited into snowballing the manufactured scandals sure to be thrown at whoever becomes the 'too radical for America" liberal criminal the Dems eventually nominate.
  #104  
Old 11-15-2018, 05:36 PM
Covfefe's Avatar
Covfefe is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
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.
IMO Hillary's glaring failure was not instilling any confidence that she viewed herself as someone who should have accountability while serving in a public office. She did not put her ethical red flags in proportional perspective versus Trump's because she did not come down to earth to address her own. Many people seemed confused about the weightiness of Trump's alleged sexual misconduct and known boorishness in relation to her baggage in allegedly covering for her husband.

While substance should be what matters most, something I'd like to see in a 2020 Democrat is someone who exhibits some humility, admits some errors if relevant, and more importantly emphasizes continual improvement.

Trump is like this guy born into money who goes around town doing 3x or 4x the speed limit all the time on a whim. The sheriff and law enforcement have come to look the other way on it. Then he gets on his social media bully pulpit and ridicules people he saw making improper turns and breaking various traffic laws while he was out. Sometimes there is truth to what he's saying, sometimes it's largely fabricated, other times it's completely mistaken or a complete fabrication.

If you're running against Trump and he says you were going 5 mph over the speed limit and there is video evidence to strongly suggest this can be corroborated, do you think pretending it didn't happen works in an arena where there is such a disconnect between Washington and the people? Own it so it uses up little time and space in the minds of those who are rational and make the distinctions between your objectives and his, between trying to improve and his medieval morality.

The conflicts of interest Trump has and treatment of the office are too severe to by and large ignore in campaign messaging. You can still run a campaign that is more about what you said than anti-him, yes, and I think drawing a line that avoids crassness and all the ad hominem stuff would be strongly preferable in a candidate and his/her running mate.
  #105  
Old 11-15-2018, 09:06 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
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 I meant to say "Tammy Duckworth," but either way. Seriously, Bill Clinton was not well-known.
  #106  
Old 11-15-2018, 09:20 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,318
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.
Yes, exactly.

What I find really interesting about this is that if you look at the last 8 Democratic nominees, you can divide them pretty neatly into two categories--four who had plenty of stature and experience and name recognition going into the nominating process, and four who really didn't.

The four "with":

Mondale, a former state attorney general, a senator for twelve years, a vice president.

Kerry, a war hero, a lieutenant governor, a senator for twenty years.

Gore, a House member for 8 years, a senator for a term, two terms as VP.

HClinton, among other things a senator and a secretary of state, and probably the best known woman in the US.

What they had in common was that they were all favorites going into their races (with the possible exception of kerry), but mainly that not a single one of them won the presidency.

The four who weren't:

Jimmy Carter, former state legislator and obscure one-term governor of a state few people paid much attention to.

Bill Clinton, governor of another obscure state few people paid much attention to, who managed to lose the governorship for four years, and known for a disastrous speech alluded to in earlier posts.

Michael Dukakis, former state legislator and like Clinton, a governor who was voted out before being voted back in.

Barack Obama, a state legislator and a first-term senator who truly lucked out when the opposing candidate had to drop out because of a sex scandal and was replaced by Alan Keyes.

None of them, with the possible exception of Dukakis, was a favorite going into the nomination process, yet all of them, with the exception of Dukakis, won not only the nomination but also the presidency.

So the importance of being nationally known and being experienced and being a person of substance, if you're a Democrat wanting to become president, is...what, exactly?

Last edited by Ulf the Unwashed; 11-15-2018 at 09:21 PM.
  #107  
Old 11-15-2018, 10:27 PM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,453
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.
Dude, he never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. The vote for Trump wasn't a 'let's see what happens' or a 'protest against the Democratic party'.
He's a loon. Go let him run on the Republican ticket. He's a non-starter. He lost a House race, FFS.

'Message and grit'. Seriously, put down whatever you're smoking. If he can't win over people in his own neighborhood - after voting for Trump! - how do you think he's going to play on the national stage?
Also, he's a loon.

I want someone in the White House again that we can respect and look up to because of their intelligence, dignity and eloquence in speech and writing.
Not a male version of Sarah Palin.
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 10:30 PM.
  #108  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:18 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,065
The ads against Ojeda write themselves: Even he voted for Trump.

You can't run for the same office where you previously and publicly voted for your opponent.
  #109  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:19 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
So Sherrod Brown's possibly getting into the ring is interesting.

He'd move immediately up into my top grouping.

A heartland/rustbelt progressive with serious white rural and Blue collar voter cred who just again won Ohio and does that while being clear in his understanding of the independent impacts of racial disparities and of his support for gun control. Who knows how to get things done inside the beltway while still being a solid change from the status quo.

Not as powerful of a speaker as Kamala Harris but he has a lot going for him. Not much of a question that winning those "Northern Path" states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan) is key for a D victory. He'd be very strong in all and is the best shot the party has at getting Ohio too.

Of course it would hurt to lose him in the Senate.


Ojeda? The far best choice for the WV House seat. Very sorry he lost. And I hope he'll work hard in WV for whoever is on the top of the Dem ticket in 2020. It most certainly will not be him.
  #110  
Old 11-16-2018, 12:23 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Not as powerful of a speaker as Kamala Harris but he has a lot going for him. .
I have heard her speak. Not Impressed.
  #111  
Old 11-16-2018, 03:53 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
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.
I concur on two out of three.

But Barack Obama did gain quite favorable national recognition for his 2004 keynote speech. And he had enough stature by 2006 that, the Sunday after the midterms, the Washington Post turned the front page of their Outlook section into a big "Hillary v. Obama" spread. And that was already a completely reasonable way to view the battle for the 2008 nomination.


The reason why I remember that spread is that it was literally the Sunday just five days after the 2006 midterms, when the Dems had captured both houses of Congress after 12 years of Republican control. And the WaPo opinion section couldn't be bothered to spend one Sunday on that, before jumping ahead to 2008. I opened my paper to the Outlook section, looking forward to seeing what they had to say about this momentous election, and was pissed that the answer was "we'd rather talk about the election two years away, rather than the election five days ago." This is off topic, hence the small print, but this is why I remember it a dozen years later.
  #112  
Old 11-16-2018, 04:18 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,104
Sherrod Brown spoke at the 2016 Democratic Convention. He is not a fan of Donald Trump.
Senator Brown gave a victory speech election night.

He seems OK. I'm telling all my delegates to switch their votes to Sherrod Brown!

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

On another matter, any further mention of Ojeda is a hijack and will be reported to the Mods.
  #113  
Old 11-16-2018, 04:39 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
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.
What does "credible contender" mean to you? The main difference between McRaven and Warren is that the former would probably win in November in 2020; the latter would probably lose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
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.)
And over fourteen hours later, we see:
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
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.
Does "came out of nowhere" mean "had well-established national stature and name recognition two years out" ?? One of us definitely needs a new dictionary.

And, speaking of dictionaries, perhaps my charisma("a special power that some people have naturally that makes them able to influence other people and attract their attention and admiration") wasn't the very best word. But my impression was that Carter exuded a sense of serenity, sincerity and integrity much different from most politicians. Listen to Jimmy Carter speak and then tell me which of the current crop will inspire me with the same admiration when I listen to them speak.
  #114  
Old 11-16-2018, 05:44 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
And all the Beto fantasies are equally hopeless. Sure, he has charisma and he's handsome but he has very little experience and may well be as much of an empty suit as Bill McKay. Of course, McKay won so there is that I guess.
I'm still tentatively on Team Beto at the moment, not because he'd be the best President of all the choices on offer but because he's quite likely the best campaigner the Democrats have. He's got a positive, upbeat message (a la Obama), he's already got international name recognition, he's shown he can fundraise extremely well without relying primarily on big donors, he's from an increasingly purple Texas, he's already been through a full cycle of GOP shitflinging with minimal reputational damage and his debate performances, while not stellar, were reasonably competent and not damaging either.

Yes, his experience is limited but the Republicans are hardly in a position to bitch about candidates with limited political experience. Pair him with someone who does have the policy chops and DC insider connections (as Obama did with Biden) and the Democrats could be onto a winner.

Last edited by Gyrate; 11-16-2018 at 05:48 AM.
  #115  
Old 11-16-2018, 07:11 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I have heard her speak. Not Impressed.
Really?

Dang I am.
  #116  
Old 11-16-2018, 08:19 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,666
Quote:
Quoth septimus:

On another matter, any further mention of Ojeda is a hijack and will be reported to the Mods.
This is a thread about the declared Democratic candidates for President. Ojeda is one of two declared Democratic candidates. How is that a hijack? If anything, Harris, Brown, etc. are the hijacks, not Ojeda.

(in case it's not clear here, I'm not speaking as a moderator, as this is not my forum).
  #117  
Old 11-16-2018, 08:24 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,256
There are plenty of people whom we don't think possess charisma now, but will when the actual numbers start coming in. And there are others whom we do now think possess it, but will later come to think of as tinhorns. That means no more than name recognition at this point.

All we do know is that the nominee will be someone we have already heard of, whether or not most voters have, and that the campaign will take on a dynamic of its own.
  #118  
Old 11-16-2018, 08:30 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,557

The Moderator Clears His Throat


Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
On another matter, any further mention of Ojeda is a hijack and will be reported to the Mods.
It is my forum, though.

Don't tell other people what to do or threaten them with sanction. I won't warn you for it this time, but who knows what the future holds.

I rule that Ojeda is a perfectly valid topic for this thread.
  #119  
Old 11-16-2018, 09:49 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,501
There is an old saying about running for president. That you run twice, once to get known and once to get elected. Ojeda, at this point, may simply be running to get known. Of course, sometimes you win the first time. (Bill)Clinton may have merely been running to get known in '92 but the country had other ideas.
  #120  
Old 11-16-2018, 09:55 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,557
Ditto Obama. I'm gonna go to my grave thinking he put that team together hoping that in their wildest dreams he'd end up Hillary's VP selection. Then part way through realized, "holy shit, we can do this" and wound it up into overdrive.
  #121  
Old 11-16-2018, 10:17 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,916
Clinton was helped by the bad economy in 92 and also Bush Sr. was mainly there because Reagan could not run again in 92.
  #122  
Old 11-16-2018, 10:41 AM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Clinton was helped by the bad economy in 92 and also Bush Sr. was mainly there because Reagan could not run again in 92.
Bush had won, and won handily, in Ď88, so Iím not sure what Reaganís unavailability in Ď92 has to do with it.
  #123  
Old 11-16-2018, 02:05 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I concur on two out of three.

But Barack Obama did gain quite favorable national recognition for his 2004 keynote speech. And he had enough stature by 2006 that, the Sunday after the midterms, the Washington Post turned the front page of their Outlook section into a big "Hillary v. Obama" spread. And that was already a completely reasonable way to view the battle for the 2008 nomination.


The reason why I remember that spread is that it was literally the Sunday just five days after the 2006 midterms, when the Dems had captured both houses of Congress after 12 years of Republican control. And the WaPo opinion section couldn't be bothered to spend one Sunday on that, before jumping ahead to 2008. I opened my paper to the Outlook section, looking forward to seeing what they had to say about this momentous election, and was pissed that the answer was "we'd rather talk about the election two years away, rather than the election five days ago." This is off topic, hence the small print, but this is why I remember it a dozen years later.
I stand corrected. Also, poor Bill Richardson, to be dismissed so easily so early!
  #124  
Old 11-16-2018, 03:40 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Ditto Obama. I'm gonna go to my grave thinking he put that team together hoping that in their wildest dreams he'd end up Hillary's VP selection. Then part way through realized, "holy shit, we can do this" and wound it up into overdrive.
Where do you think the phrase "Yes we can!" came form?
  #125  
Old 11-16-2018, 03:44 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
Bush had won, and won handily, in Ď88, so Iím not sure what Reaganís unavailability in Ď92 has to do with it.
I meant to say Bush Sr. mainly won in 88 because Reagan could not run for a 3rd term. He was not really a strong candidate other than the fact that he was seen as a Reagan surrogate and that was not true any more in 92.
  #126  
Old 11-16-2018, 09:53 PM
Win Place Show is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I'm still tentatively on Team Beto at the moment, not because he'd be the best President of all the choices on offer but because he's quite likely the best campaigner the Democrats have. He's got a positive, upbeat message (a la Obama), he's already got international name recognition, he's shown he can fundraise extremely well without relying primarily on big donors, he's from an increasingly purple Texas, he's already been through a full cycle of GOP shitflinging with minimal reputational damage and his debate performances, while not stellar, were reasonably competent and not damaging either.

Yes, his experience is limited but the Republicans are hardly in a position to bitch about candidates with limited political experience. Pair him with someone who does have the policy chops and DC insider connections (as Obama did with Biden) and the Democrats could be onto a winner.
You and me both (and I'm a lifelong Texan, two-time Obama- and one-time Hillary-voter).

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to big-stage politics, so maybe I've read to much into the "well like Beto, Abe Lincoln lost a Senate race and see where he ended up?" social-media comments.

But I see no reason that Beto couldn't be considered - if not the (D) front-runner at this point - certainly in the top-tier? Maybe he gets weeded out (through attrition, lack of interest in two years, or some made-up Fox News bullshit), but he's my leader in the clubhouse as of this moment.
  #127  
Old 11-16-2018, 10:30 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Beto deserves a real thought as a VP candidate. He proved himself a monster campaigner. A well regarded Red state kid. He has to do something to keep his name in the conversation for the next 12 months though. Otherwise, he'll soon only be a fond memory.
  #128  
Old 11-16-2018, 10:39 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Where do you think the phrase "Yes we can!" came form?
It tested better than, "Holy Fuck. Really?"
  #129  
Old 11-16-2018, 11:02 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Beto deserves a real thought as a VP candidate. He proved himself a monster campaigner. A well regarded Red state kid. He has to do something to keep his name in the conversation for the next 12 months though. Otherwise, he'll soon only be a fond memory.
I actually think that if you want to elevate Beto, you put him in the VA or Defense Department. That's what he's specialized in as a House member. Make him an Undersecretary.
  #130  
Old 11-16-2018, 11:58 PM
Win Place Show is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Beto deserves a real thought as a VP candidate. He proved himself a monster campaigner.
Holy crap that's a pretty cool thought - I'm sure it's been mentioned here before (either in this thread, or elsewhere), but maybe a Biden / Beto ticket?
  #131  
Old 11-17-2018, 12:05 AM
Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Beto deserves a real thought as a VP candidate. He proved himself a monster campaigner. A well regarded Red state kid. He has to do something to keep his name in the conversation for the next 12 months though. Otherwise, he'll soon only be a fond memory.
He's been in the House for six years, so he has legislative experience. I think he could be a real asset at VP, and it would give him enough juice for his own presidential run. I think this is a great idea.
  #132  
Old 11-17-2018, 12:27 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,890
My reason for not liking Beto as the running mate:

I feel like we need a white man at the top of the ticket in 2020. Personally, I'm ready to hand things off to a woman last night. But I'm not willing to confirm that America is still as sexist in 2020 as they appeared to be in 2016.

That being said, I don't think we need a ticket with two white dudes. A white dude as the nominee doesn't need Beto as his running mate. My ideal ticket is a young(ish) white dude who can inspire partnered with a youngish or more-mature woman-of-color as the running mate.

Is anyone else wary of a Dem ticket consisting of two white dudes in 2020? Or is this just me?

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 11-17-2018 at 12:27 AM.
  #133  
Old 11-17-2018, 12:59 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,497
I just watched some videos of Sherrod Brown on YouTube. Holy shit, he looks and sounds straight out of central casting for the role of a "rumpled, overworked professor/detective/salesman." I mean, this guy is like the second coming of Columbo. Whether this could be a good or bad thing for a presidential campaign, I'm not entirely sure. He's very very different from the typical polished and mannered ideal of a politician, that's for certain. He's a real "character." I'm inclined to view this as an asset rather than a liability, in the current political climate. The question is could he take the debate stage with Trump and be the brick wall of brick walls against Trump's taunting and vindictive rhetoric first-hand? Or would he be too rattled and thrown off by it to make his points effectively?
  #134  
Old 11-17-2018, 01:44 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
Yeah, not only is Biden/Beto two white dudes, it's a really old guy with a running mate who is not ready to be President. No one has any idea how Beto would do in a national race. The kinds of questions you face are totally different. He'll be quizzed on basic facts and if he doesn't know them, he's Sarah Palin. And given the similarities in temperament between McCain and Biden it would not surprise me to see Biden go down that path.
  #135  
Old 11-17-2018, 02:36 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Win Place Show View Post
Holy crap that's a pretty cool thought - I'm sure it's been mentioned here before (either in this thread, or elsewhere), but maybe a Biden / Beto ticket?
I like it.
  #136  
Old 11-17-2018, 02:38 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
My reason for not liking Beto as the running mate:

I feel like we need a white man at the top of the ticket in 2020. Personally, I'm ready to hand things off to a woman last night. But I'm not willing to confirm that America is still as sexist in 2020 as they appeared to be in 2016.


Is anyone else wary of a Dem ticket consisting of two white dudes in 2020? Or is this just me?
Hmm, you make a point. I would say woman or minority or both, doesn't have to be both. But whatever wins, and if Beto can bring in Texas.....
  #137  
Old 11-17-2018, 03:21 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
Sigh. Too many people who are otherwise smart seem to think we're electing a middle school class President.
  #138  
Old 11-17-2018, 04:57 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Sigh. Too many people who are otherwise smart seem to think we're electing a middle school class President.
Would you rather elect someone who couldn't be elected middle school class president?
  #139  
Old 11-17-2018, 06:53 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
Let's start from actual accomplishments and go from there. Likeability is what you look at after you've got someone who has done something that would imply that they could be a good President.

There's more to this than just winning the election. Electing an empty suit just means Democrats lose the House, fall further behind in the Senate, and then the Republicans get another crack at unified government in only 4-8 years.
  #140  
Old 11-17-2018, 07:11 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,666
Beto can't bring in Texas. He already lost against a Republican in Texas, and Trump is more popular than Cruz. He might bring in a bunch of other states, but Texas itself is a pipe dream.
  #141  
Old 11-17-2018, 07:12 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Accomplishments in the past mean little if you aint electable.

Sigh. Too many people who are otherwise smart seem to think this is like hiring an IT guy.
  #142  
Old 11-17-2018, 07:30 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,118
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%.
The fundraising, or lack of it, will start to thin the herd starting sometime next summer. It'll be interesting to see which candidates are able to raise money by the time the pre-debate "debates" start.
  #143  
Old 11-17-2018, 07:59 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,118
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.
Voting for Trump doesn't make him Palin-level stupid. Irrespective of how terribly wrong he was in voting for Trump -and I acknowledge he was - Ojeda was voting in line with many of the constituents he serves. He acknowledged his regret and life goes on.

To clarify, I'm not predicting Ojeda will win and I'm not saying that he's necessarily my favorite candidate at this point - we don't really know who's in the game yet. But regardless, Ojeda absolutely does have some of the qualities that I think a democratic candidate is going to need to compete with a Trump campaign nationally. As impressive as some of the other candidates are, Ojeda is one of the few - perhaps the only one at this point - who can tout his bona fides in actually organizing a successful grassroots campaign to strengthen unions. Bernie Sanders naturally gets a lot of credit for reshaping the political environment so that Democrats feel more confident and comfortable having open discussions about returning to their working class roots as a party. But Ojeda has actually helped implement that policy in significant ways.

I would have to acknowledge that one knock on Ojeda is that it's not clear what his overall grasp of the issues is. Whatever might endear me to him as a veteran and fighter for unions, we don't need an ignorant populist - we're already paying a pretty steep price as it is. The other potential problem is that I could see him being a little too much like a Trumpian candidate, which would be a big turnout, regardless of how I feel about his command of the issues. I don't want to see a Democratic populist who campaigns on the idea of fighting in the sewer with Trump. I agree with comments made by David Axelrod in a recent article (published by Vanity Fair), which is that a lot of Americans are going to be exhausted by Trump in 2020, and the last thing they'll be looking for his the left's version of a demagogue.
  #144  
Old 11-17-2018, 08:02 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,557
I'd also offer that Beto is a flavor-of-the-week. Right now he's an infatuation and may not last. Let's not commit to him before we see how he ages.
  #145  
Old 11-17-2018, 08:27 AM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Avenatti has by far the most name recognition at this point.
I think getting arrested for domestic violence kinda nix'd his chances.
  #146  
Old 11-17-2018, 08:37 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,557
You know, I'd have normally thought that. But recent events have shown me I was wrong.
  #147  
Old 11-17-2018, 09:07 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
I think getting arrested for domestic violence kinda nix'd his chances.
I'm still waiting to see what evidence there is to support the arrest.

A bigger problem for Avenatti is $213K is his spotty record of managing his finances, as in $213K in unpaid rents. His showmanship and wanting to take on Stormy Daniels as a client is starting to make sense.
  #148  
Old 11-17-2018, 10:33 PM
ftl_ftw is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Accomplishments in the past mean little if you aint electable.

Sigh. Too many people who are otherwise smart seem to think this is like hiring an IT guy.
Nobody really knows who's "electable" and who isn't, so debating that seems a little circular. I would have thought that Trump was totally unelectable, but he won. I would have thought that Obama was unelectable, but I was wrong on that too. Romney seemed like the classic "electable" Republican but he lost.

It makes a lot more sense to discuss more specific merits rather than "electability".
  #149  
Old 11-17-2018, 11:06 PM
Covfefe's Avatar
Covfefe is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,199
Whoever is the best at prevailing in the face of anti-intellectualism should be most electable in the general. I usually don't get hung up on or take much stock on location, but hailing from California or much of the northeast is a disadvantage to begin with considering the continual disdain for perceived elites!
  #150  
Old 11-18-2018, 12:07 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I just watched some videos of Sherrod Brown on YouTube. Holy shit, he looks and sounds straight out of central casting for the role of a "rumpled, overworked professor/detective/salesman." I mean, this guy is like the second coming of Columbo. Whether this could be a good or bad thing for a presidential campaign, I'm not entirely sure. He's very very different from the typical polished and mannered ideal of a politician, that's for certain. He's a real "character." I'm inclined to view this as an asset rather than a liability, in the current political climate. The question is could he take the debate stage with Trump and be the brick wall of brick walls against Trump's taunting and vindictive rhetoric first-hand? Or would he be too rattled and thrown off by it to make his points effectively?
And add he is a Democrat from Ohio who has won statewide elections 4 times, twice each as Ohio Secretary of State and to the U.S Senate. Ohio is one of the states, along with Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, crucial to Democratic success in 2020.

Everyone is creaming their pants about East and West Coast liberals like Harris, Warren and Sanders. I doubt they will connect with the Obama voters in those states who were turned off by HRC and fell for Trump or stayed at home.

Brown deserves serious consideration but he isn't sexy or exciting enough for most Democrats, particularly not the Beto fans.

'Tis a pity because I think a Brown/Harris ticket would have a decent shot at winning.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 11-18-2018 at 12:09 AM.
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 AM.

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