Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 11-18-2018, 12:15 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
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.
I suggested this very ticket about a year ago somewhere on this board. I still think it would be a great one.

I caught Senator Brown making an impassioned speech just a couple nights ago. That guy can barnstorm. I was very impressed -- he definitely dispelled any "Columbo" vibe.
  #152  
Old 11-18-2018, 05:03 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
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.
I think you may well be right.

Brown has certain mannerisms in common with Bernie Sanders - mannerisms, not policies - but I'm convinced Bernie's appeal actually had more to do with his mannerisms and sense of conviction, than his policies. He has one big advantage over Bernie, he's much younger. But like Bernie, his voice is super distinctive and I believe this is a big asset. It's gravelly and grumpy-sounding and it goes along with his disheveled appearance, and all of this is good, not bad, in that it turns him into a character and PEOPLE LIKE CHARACTERS. People want to listen to characters talk. They want to make memes about them. They want to follow them on social media. These are all assets to a candidate. I daresay they matter MORE than that candidate's political platform.
  #153  
Old 11-18-2018, 05:05 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I was very impressed -- he definitely dispelled any "Columbo" vibe.
He should acknowledge and embrace the Columbo vibe. I wasn't even saying it like it's necessarily a bad thing; just pointing out the uncanny similarity. Apparently I'm not the first to do so either, as I googled the comparison and found out that Ben Carson (!) said the same thing.
  #154  
Old 11-18-2018, 05:27 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,175
In fact, in debates, he should start all of his rebuttals to Trump with "Oh, just one more thing..."
  #155  
Old 11-18-2018, 09:12 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,340
No one in this thread has mentioned Andrew Yang yet. Granted that his odds of getting the nomination are about equal to the chances that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers will win the Super Bowl, it would be to the Democrats' benefit if he at least made the debates so that his ideas could get some air time. He is focused on the problem of job losses to technology and proposes a three-pronged solution:
  • Universal health care.
  • Universal basic income.
  • "Digital Social Currencry"

In the interview that I linked to, he explains the last one as follows:
Digital social currency, in its simplest form, would be that the federal government goes into a particular region—let’s call it Mississippi—and then says, there are some social problems here, Mississippi, that we might be able to help address. Like, maybe child obesity…or educational outcomes… Then, the government comes in and says, organizations that are doing work in those areas, we’re now going to put the equivalent of the financial incentive in place for people and companies who help meet certain goals. And here’s how you can help measure their work and participation.

So, if someone were to…spend lots of time tutoring kids—that might help with educational outcomes—then, if they document what they were doing, and there’s a local nonprofit that says, yes, they did tutor these kids for X hours, then they could get this social credit that they could then exchange for dollars if they chose. But there would be other ways for them to get rewarded that didn’t involve just running to the bank to cash [the social credits] in for dollars. You could use your social credits to get experiences or discounts at certain vendors or trade them with others.

Then, let’s imagine that that’s successful and then over time that improves educational outcomes in Mississippi, then you put social credits to work for other various goals. And then, over time, you end up building a fairly robust set of opportunities for people.
  #156  
Old 11-18-2018, 11:29 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
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?
This is not in response to my point, because what I was trying to convey is not the importance of experience, but the importance of charisma, especially a charismatic speaking style.

Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and, yes, even Jimmy Carter had admirable qualities apparent in their speech before they became nationally known. And whether we like it or not, Reagan and Trump won the office almost totally because of their speaking skills. (And Gore was a "perfect" candidate who lost due to his wooden delivery.)

And that's what I'm using to motivate my search for the best candidate. I think most of us would agree that Bernie Sanders has strong charisma (though I'm inclined to reject him for other reasons). But who else has strong charisma?

I can't do this alone: different people will have different reactions. My idea of "charisma" may not match yours, or that of the millions of swing voters. Sherrod Brown and Julian Castro are two I regard strongly right now. Other Dopers may reject these and find some other candidates charismatic. Fine.

But let's ask the right questions about possible candidates! I fear some Dopers are touting candidates who will fall on their face for lack of charisma.
__________________
Some or all of the above statements may be intended as sarcastic.
.
andros had more faith in an American jury than I had; and he was right. I'm happy to lose a bet and hope this trend continues.

Last edited by septimus; 11-18-2018 at 11:32 PM.
  #157  
Old 11-18-2018, 11:42 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
... Reagan and Trump won the office almost totally because of their speaking skills. (And Gore was a "perfect" candidate who lost due to his wooden delivery.) ...
To expand on this point, many voted for Bush-43 in 2000 because "he seemed like a guy they'd want to drink beer with." Remember: it is NOT policy wonks or even well-informed citizens who will decide the 2020 Presidential election. Just the opposite, it will be the under-informed masses, easily swayed by personal appearance and trivia.

I've repeatedly stressed that Electability, electability and electability are the criteria for our selection. (I could have written Charisma, charisma, charisma, but that word is ambiguous.)

Now, please re-evaluate your choices for the Democratic nomination in this light!
__________________
Some or all of the above statements may be intended as sarcastic.
.
andros had more faith in an American jury than I had; and he was right. I'm happy to lose a bet and hope this trend continues.
  #158  
Old 11-19-2018, 04:21 AM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
this time he is going to pick Stormy Daniels as the running mate
Of all the people Trump selected, Stormy might be the only one who was actually capable of doing a good job at the position assigned.
  #159  
Old 11-19-2018, 10:01 AM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
This is not in response to my point, because what I was trying to convey is not the importance of experience, but the importance of charisma, especially a charismatic speaking style.

Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and, yes, even Jimmy Carter had admirable qualities apparent in their speech before they became nationally known. And whether we like it or not, Reagan and Trump won the office almost totally because of their speaking skills. (And Gore was a "perfect" candidate who lost due to his wooden delivery.)

And that's what I'm using to motivate my search for the best candidate. I think most of us would agree that Bernie Sanders has strong charisma (though I'm inclined to reject him for other reasons). But who else has strong charisma?

...

But let's ask the right questions about possible candidates! I fear some Dopers are touting candidates who will fall on their face for lack of charisma.
It took a little unpacking to understand what you meant with "this is not in response to my point," as I hadn't been responding directly to you. But I got it traced back to your post #74, in which you said that "with few exceptions, everyone on this list [a bunch of presidents, but not all, going back to FDR] was a superstar of great achievement and/or charisma." So I have no idea what you mean by not trying to convey "the importance of experience" but rather "the importance of charisma," as you were clearly trying to do both.

My post, then, addressed the experience issue: in a very small sample of the last 8 Dem candidates, experience does not seem to have been helpful. So it was on point to what you said.

If you want now to make it all about charisma, that's obviously your prerogative; but it wasn't where you began the conversation.
  #160  
Old 11-19-2018, 10:19 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,024
It would be funny if Gavin Newsome was the nominee because Don Jr is now banging his ex wife.
  #161  
Old 11-19-2018, 11:49 AM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
This is not in response to my point, because what I was trying to convey is not the importance of experience, but the importance of charisma, especially a charismatic speaking style.

Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and, yes, even Jimmy Carter had admirable qualities apparent in their speech before they became nationally known. And whether we like it or not, Reagan and Trump won the office almost totally because of their speaking skills. (And Gore was a "perfect" candidate who lost due to his wooden delivery.)

And that's what I'm using to motivate my search for the best candidate. I think most of us would agree that Bernie Sanders has strong charisma (though I'm inclined to reject him for other reasons). But who else has strong charisma?

I can't do this alone: different people will have different reactions. My idea of "charisma" may not match yours, or that of the millions of swing voters. Sherrod Brown and Julian Castro are two I regard strongly right now. Other Dopers may reject these and find some other candidates charismatic. Fine.

But let's ask the right questions about possible candidates! I fear some Dopers are touting candidates who will fall on their face for lack of charisma.
I also think "charisma" is a difficult concept to define, and an easy one to retrofit. "he won the election--hey, he must be charismatic!"

My two cents about some of the folks you've named:

I never thought Jimmy Carter was charismatic in any meaningful way. He was an okay speaker in my recollection, prone to overintellectualizing things and perhaps a little moralistic. I'm not sure what charismatic would mean in his context, especially where speaking is concerned.

I agree that Bill Clinton is and was a very fine speaker, and a magnetic personality in a lot of ways (he's the sort of person you'd walk into a room and notice, if you get my drift). But it took a while for people to figure that out. For years his best known speech was the one he'd bombed at the '88 convention--blowhardy, boring, and the antithesis of charismatic. And when he began separating himself from Tsongas and Brown and the others in the primaries, it had less to do with public speaking style than with empathy (remember the "I feel your pain" moment?) and a greater clarity on his part about why he wanted to be president and what he would do than the others. The charisma was real, but wasn't definitive.

Obama, I'll absolutely give you. And I'll agree that Gore was not charismatic. (To say nothing of "Zorba the Clerk." Though for Dukakis and Gore, how had they won so many prior elections if their charisma quotient was so low?) But I don't see the vague notion of "charisma" as being of defining importance in whether you win an election.
  #162  
Old 11-19-2018, 12:47 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,024
Bloomberg donated $1.8 Billion to his alma mater Johns Hopkins

and he will decide to run for president or not by Feb at the latest.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/18/polit...ion/index.html

Last edited by Bijou Drains; 11-19-2018 at 12:48 PM.
  #163  
Old 11-19-2018, 12:51 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
... So I have no idea what you mean by not trying to convey "the importance of experience" but rather "the importance of charisma," as you were clearly trying to do both. ...
I may be as guilty of the fault as anyone, but it's best to look forward in a discussion, not look back to see who said what when. In fact my disjunction "charisma OR achievement" was just to accommodate achievers like Eisenhower or well-known big-state Governors (Bush-43) where lack of charisma might not disqualify.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
I also think "charisma" is a difficult concept to define, and an easy one to retrofit. "he won the election--hey, he must be charismatic!"
... And I'll agree that Gore was not charismatic. (To say nothing of "Zorba the Clerk." Though for Dukakis and Gore, how had they won so many prior elections if their charisma quotient was so low?) But I don't see the vague notion of "charisma" as being of defining importance in whether you win an election.
Instead of "charismatic" perhaps I should use the even more general and ambiguous "has a pleasing personality, a personality that makes people want to pay attention." Dukakis and Gore were uninspiring, forgettable or "wooden" — that's why they lost. That's why Gillibrand or Booker will lose if they run. IMHO.

How do these people become Senator or Governor if they lack the charisma to become President? Very simple. The electoral base is different. Many average voters barely know who their Senator is, and probably stayed home altogether if it was a "midterm." In some cases, it is the Primary election — with policy-oriented voters — that determines a winner rather than the November play-off. It's just the Presidential election, with televised debates, etc., where the under-informed masses get involved; and therefore where personality becomes of dominant importance.

This is my own thinking and may not be 100% correct. But the push-back I'm getting in these threads makes me think this important point is generally overlooked.

The importance of personality should have been clear from the 2016 election: Trump and Sanders dominated because of their personalities. Note that millions of voters apparently liked both Sanders and Trump despite that their stances on the issues were opposite. How do you explain that absurd fact except as the importance of personality? (Never mind whether you think wise Americans should admire Trump's personality — many Americans are not wise.)
  #164  
Old 11-19-2018, 04:04 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,776
Trump's personality certainly isn't "pleasing". He'd probably say that being pleasing makes you weak.
  #165  
Old 11-19-2018, 11:29 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Trump's personality certainly isn't "pleasing". He'd probably say that being pleasing makes you weak.
So we have two issues to debate:
(A) Is "charisma" or "captivating personality" — once we define them properly — truly a key criterion in guessing success for the Presidential election in November, 2020 ?
(B) How should we best phrase our definition of "charisma" to avoid distracting the discussion from issue (A)?

I'll now pose these questions:
(1) Which issue is more relevant to the thread — and to the future of the U.S.A. — (A) or (B)?
(2) If it's wrong to say that Trump's "personality" or "charisma" was key to his election, then what was the key? His strong moral fiber and integrity? His appeal to the established leaders of his Party? His deeply intelligent grasp of the issues? His respect for people of all races, creeds and genders? The warmth and love for humanity he projected?
  #166  
Old 11-20-2018, 07:25 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
Every President for the last 100 years has had a certain je ne sais quoi. The Dems must find someone with je ne sais quoi or they're doooooooomed.
  #167  
Old 11-20-2018, 09:40 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Every President for the last 100 years has had a certain je ne sais quoi. The Dems must find someone with je ne sais quoi or they're doooooooomed.
Oh, terrific. We're going to choose a presidential candidate, and eventually a president, based on something we can't even define?? Yeah, that's right up there with "I can't define [pornography], but I know it when I see it.

Forget putting a man on the moon; I'm sometimes amazed Americans kept from starving to death or tripping over their shoelaces and bashing their heads in long enough to declare independence.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #168  
Old 11-20-2018, 09:49 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
You can't define je ne sais quoi? Ok, some other words then.
  #169  
Old 11-20-2018, 09:59 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,903
Tom Steyer lays some more ground work.
  #170  
Old 11-20-2018, 04:30 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Every President for the last 100 years has had a certain je ne sais quoi. The Dems must find someone with je ne sais quoi or they're doooooooomed.
When a candidate has it, everyone knows it, supporters and critics alike. No one denied that JFK, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama had it. In fact, their opponents tried to use it against them. So at least we know that if a candidate has it, we'll all pretty much agree on it. So that's the easy part. Even easier is getting those candidates nominated. Except for one time, Reagan in 1976 when he was running against an incumbent President of his own party and still almost won, these candidates always win their nominations.

The hard part is actually finding such candidates. Most of the time you won't. So you need a plan B. Heck, you CAN'T actually find them. Candidates that have it introduce themselves to the public without having to be sought. This is kinda like saying, "Okay, we need to pay our mortgage, so check this out. First, we win the Powerball."

So there will either be such a candidate or there won't be. assume there won't be, because that's when you have to make actual decisions.

Last edited by adaher; 11-20-2018 at 04:31 PM.
  #171  
Old 11-20-2018, 04:40 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 CarnalK View Post
You can't define je ne sais quoi?
I think the point its that "je ne sais quoi", literally, cannot be defined.

You are probably thinking of charisma. But not all presidents had it. Bush the elder certainly did not.
  #172  
Old 11-20-2018, 04:47 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
Neither did Bush the younger, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, or Truman. I actually think having four in only 60 years is historically unusual. The law of averages says we might not see even one in the next 60.
  #173  
Old 11-20-2018, 04:49 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Neither did Bush the younger, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, or Truman. I actually think having four in only 60 years is historically unusual. The law of averages says we might not see even one in the next 60.
All those guys defeated less charismatic opponents in the general election.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #174  
Old 11-20-2018, 05:02 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,871
Hmmmmm, I don't know.... Dewey was a star in his time, not JFK-level, but pretty popular. HHH I think was more likeable than Nixon. And while I wouldn't really call either Goldwater or LBJ charismatic, I think Goldwater was by far the better speaker and the more forceful orator. The public just thought he was an extremist.
  #175  
Old 11-20-2018, 07:32 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
Goldwater was a loony, but what a middle school class president he'd have made!
  #176  
Old 11-20-2018, 08:44 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
A question inspired by an aside in today's 538, that Nixon had a huge midterm beatdown but "Democrats’ high turnout in 1970 presaged a landslide loss in 1972, when they nominated George McGovern." -

Who, of the possible nominees, would, if nominated, be McGovern this next election cycle?

I'm not seeing any.


As to the charisma v achievement question - I submit that it is a poor way to look at it. The issue is being qualified for the job. The job qualifications include some ability to delegate and to manage a team, and maybe a little bit experience at navigating within government. It just happens however that a large part, maybe THE large part, of this particular job is SELLING the public, or at least enough of the public, on a particular vision for the country and of the world, thereby having the power to get Congress to follow the president's lead. Pretty much the rest of the job can be delegated by someone who knows how to put a good team together and to manage them ... or even just can hire a Chief of Staff who does that.

Achievements don't necessarily provide the evidence needed for how good someone will be at that sales portion. So we are left with our gut reactions: does this person present in a way that "we" want to follow? "Charisma" is a word to try to capture how we judge if the individual has that specific qualification.
  #177  
Old 11-20-2018, 09:08 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
A question inspired by an aside in today's 538, that Nixon had a huge midterm beatdown but "Democrats’ high turnout in 1970 presaged a landslide loss in 1972, when they nominated George McGovern." -

Who, of the possible nominees, would, if nominated, be McGovern this next election cycle?

I'm not seeing any.
Warren is our McGovern.
  #178  
Old 11-20-2018, 09:17 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid
Achievements don't necessarily provide the evidence needed for how good someone will be at that sales portion. So we are left with our gut reactions: does this person present in a way that "we" want to follow? "Charisma" is a word to try to capture how we judge if the individual has that specific qualification.
Like I said! Je ne sais quoi!!
  #179  
Old 11-23-2018, 09:54 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,903
Nothing official, but Sherrod Brown sets his sights on Trump in 2020.

I've always been a bit hesitant to consider Brown a viable choice, mainly because of the old spousal abuse claims that continue to cling to him at the periphery.

However, on paper, he's everything I'm looking for in a 2020 nominee: White, male, progressive, midwestern, comes from Ohio, good speaker, connects with blue collars. Pair him up with a woman VP, from a Midwestern or a red state (Tammy Duckworth-IL, Amy Klobuchar-MN, Sally Yates-GA), and that might be a solid ticket.
  #180  
Old 11-23-2018, 11:29 AM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
I think this is the first time I've heard Sally Yates suggested as a prospective VP. Interesting idea, but think I'd rather send her back to run Justice.
  #181  
Old 11-23-2018, 12:12 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
Quote:
“I am definitely drawn to public service,” Yates said in an interview with The Washington Post. “I wouldn’t have stayed at DOJ for 27 years if that weren’t the case. But I’ve never really felt the urge to run for office. That’s a different animal to me than straight-up public service. . . . I can’t envision a scenario where I would be running for office.”
Sally Yates returns to Atlanta-based law firm to focus on investigations
Doesn't sound like politician speak for "maybe" to me but who knows?
  #182  
Old 11-23-2018, 12:29 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
... he's everything I'm looking for in a 2020 nominee: White, male, progressive, midwestern, comes from Ohio, good speaker, connects with blue collars. ...
I'm a fan of Brown for many reasons - I think he is "intersectional" in many important ways - progressive, pragmatic, cred with workers of all sorts including rural, a decent speaker, experienced in how things get done, and yes, midwestern specifically able to bring Ohio back into play ... but I do share Obama's belief that white and male are not required for the top of the ticket.
Quote:
“With respect to going forward, the idea that there's some demographic or profile of a particular candidate that is the optimal one or the ideal one, that's just not how I've seen politics work,” he said. “I think people respond to candidates who speak to the moment in some fashion.”
Brown I think can do that. Harris could too, so could several others, some who are white males and some who are not.

I wouldn't claim that there was zero impact of HRC's gender on 2016 but I also think that few Obama-Trump voters were motivated by misogyny. (OTOH misogyny likely cemented some who were never going to vote D in any case.) Her campaign failed to adequately get a message that spoke to the moment communicated. Admittedly it was not easy to when Trump antics sucked all oxygen out of every media cycle but Obama-Trump voters ended up not hearing any real message from her especially none that spoke to them. That failure was not function of having two X chromosomes and next cycle's candidate can make the same mistake be they a white male of a woman of color.

"Identity" plays a role, sure ... you won't get Obama level Black turnout with a white candidate on the top of the ticket. Still Kerry/Clinton level was not that far off and the Obama-Trump voters can be won back with the right message that speaks to the moment. (Meanwhile Romney-Clinton voters are likely going to stay.)

Midwestern identity though ... that could be meaningful. Winning PA, MI, WI, MN, are vital and putting OH back in play is big. A midwestern candidate who can resonate with working class voters of all sorts, who can do so without disrespecting the inequities in our society based on color, ethnicity, and gender ....that would be pretty awesome. Is that Brown? Let's see how he does in tryouts!
  #183  
Old 11-23-2018, 01:20 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,903
In response to the argument against Sally Yates:

1. No one's running for office until they are.
2. Being the running mate isn't so much running for office as it's being the campaign's top surrogate.
3. Running for vice president isn't something anyone announces beforehand.
4. It was just meant as an interesting option for VP, not to be dissected too deeply.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 11-23-2018 at 01:21 PM.
  #184  
Old 11-23-2018, 02:28 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
I wasn't dissecting it. It just seemed like she made an honest statement of no interest rather than a politician's equivocation.
  #185  
Old 11-23-2018, 03:01 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,903
Ok.
  #186  
Old 11-26-2018, 06:25 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,903
Beto not ruling out a presidential run, will make a decision once he's done with his term in Congress.

Related:
No, it's not a gamble for Dems to back Beto for President.
Obama alum: Keep an eye on Beto for 2020

The primary's a long slog with dozens of opportunities to shit one's sheets, or simply fizzle out, but Beto's resume and youth doesn't count him out in my book. I could see myself voting for him in the Michigan primary. I mean, there's a lot of real estate between now and then, so he'll still have to earn my vote, but that dude's got a lot of potential.
  #187  
Old 11-27-2018, 04:21 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,507
I have mixed feelings about Beto but he is a lot of what the Dems need. Undeniably charismatic, can get votes in red territory (maybe not enough to win Texas, but hey) and might, just might, be able to bridge the gap between the the Clintonian quasi-corporatists and the Sanders semi-socialists.
  #188  
Old 11-27-2018, 07:30 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,157
Although I've been the one stressing charisma, I am very reluctant to endorse Beto. He is being compared to Obama? Let's compare them:
  • Obama has a Bachelor's degree in Poli Sci, a Doctorate (magna cum laude) in Law; and served as a Law Professor.
    O'Rourke has a Bachelor's degree in English Lit.
  • Obama dabbled with marijuana in High School to help him find himself; then was driven along a career. In his disparaged work as "community organizer" he directed or consulted for several important projects including Project Vote.
    Beto was arrested twice in his 20's while he was "finding himelf." (OK perhaps, but could become attack theme).
  • Those who knew him were awed by Obama's obvious genius from an early age.
    Beto seems to be a likable guy.
  • Obama worked on Wall St. in his early 20's, was founding Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, did top legal work for over a decade. When elected to the State Senate at age 35, he was already a distinguished leader.
    Beto had jobs like musician, nanny, proofreader, and finally became a website developer when almost 30. When he was elected to the El Paso City Council at age 33, he'd been doing minor work in local politics for a few years.
If elected in 2020, O'Rourke will be one of the youngest Presidents since Teddy Roosevelt.: Only JFK, BHO and Bill Clinton were younger.

If Beto O'Rourke is really the white knight who will soar to victory and save us, I'm 100% behind him. But right now I'm not enthusiastic.
  #189  
Old 11-27-2018, 08:39 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
All those guys defeated less charismatic opponents in the general election.
Yes.

After a boring president, a charismatic candidate does best. And vice versa.

Of those on lists of possible Democratic nominees, Steve Bullock of Montana is the surest November winner (as well as the least likely to be nominated).

Deval Patrick seems to me another who would probably win in November.

The senatorial curse is a real thing. But Elizabeth Warren might win.

I'm thinking Bernie Sanders would lose, but I'm biased there because I don't like his politics.
  #190  
Old 12-03-2018, 05:14 PM
Emily Litella is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The swamps of Jersey
Posts: 1,181
Back in the day Beto voted for Wall Street deregulation and to fast track the TPP. I'm not sure where he stands on those issues today or if he still feels the same. I really wanted to see him take out Ted Cruz.

I know a lot of people don't like him, but I always liked Bernie Sanders. Then again, I'm one of those far left progressives, even though I'm 60 years old. What is life for, if not to dream? Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, not having to bail out banks during the next financial crisis and so much more.

I like Elizabeth Warren as a person and as a politician, but if she runs against Trump in 2020 she'll be roadkill.
__________________
NM
  #191  
Old 12-03-2018, 05:35 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
...can get votes in red territory (maybe not enough to win Texas, but hey)
What makes you think that Beto can get votes in red territory other than in Texas, where he benefited from a strong regional following? I don't see him connecting with blue collar workers in the Midwest and the industrial states that Trump won.
  #192  
Old 12-03-2018, 05:41 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
What makes you think that Beto can get votes in red territory other than in Texas, where he benefited from a strong regional following? I don't see him connecting with blue collar workers in the Midwest and the industrial states that Trump won.
Because his message is very similar to a Vermont senator's message, and that Vermont senator did just fine in Midwestern rust belt states in the 2016 Dem primary. I don't think a candidate's home state matters as much as having a dynamic message that people connect with.
  #193  
Old 12-03-2018, 06:10 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emily Litella View Post
Back in the day Beto voted for Wall Street deregulation and to fast track the TPP. ...
FWIW I support TPP, but Wall Street deregulation?? What bill(s) was that? Did any other top D's go over to the Dark Side on that?
  #194  
Old 12-03-2018, 09:32 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Because his message is very similar to a Vermont senator's message, and that Vermont senator did just fine in Midwestern rust belt states in the 2016 Dem primary. I don't think a candidate's home state matters as much as having a dynamic message that people connect with.
His message is also "I'm not Hillary."?

More seriously there are several choices of candidates who will be espousing progressive themes this cycle. Why will his connect better than theirs? Seems to me that given two candidates who comparably espouse similar progressive themes, the one who has a history with the voters in a region and speaks the idiom of it will have an advantage.
  #195  
Old 12-03-2018, 09:53 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,903
The ability to go viral can't be underestimated. While younger people may not be reliable voters, they are the ones who create media and social media buzz. The candidate who has the ability to get their message heard, shared, covered and talked about is the one who has the advantage. In the past six months, AO-C and Beto have both proven to be very good at this. A candidate could have the greatest message this side of paradise, but if they can't capture the public's attention in memes, viral videos and catchphrases, they barely stand a chance anymore.

Will Beto's buzz last? Who knows? Maybe Brown or someone else will blow this thing open, or Beto fizzles quickly. But, after working presidential campaigns out of rust belt unions halls since 2004, as long as the candidate is inspirational and connects with workers, they'll do ok regardless of their home state or political resume. Just ask Donald Trump: inspired and connected with workers. Or ask Hillary Clinton: didn't inspire and didn't give two shits about workers in the rust belt.

Obama and Bernie weren't rust belt blue collar guys, but they both did very well with rust belt blue collar guys. They created buzz, they got their message heard and they inspired people. That's more important than being from Ohio. That being said, if Brown can create buzz, get his message heard and inspire people (and attract donors), being from Ohio will be icing on the cake.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 12-03-2018 at 09:55 PM.
  #196  
Old 12-03-2018, 09:58 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
The ability to go viral can't be underestimated. ...
True. But it is easily overestimated.

Those who reliably vote are in the same media a social media buzz circles.
  #197  
Old 12-03-2018, 10:15 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
True. But it is easily overestimated.

Those who reliably vote are in the same media a social media buzz circles.
True, but when the young folks share the videos and memes and get things trending on Twitter, the older folks are exposed to that message, whether it's being covered by traditional media or bouncing around on social media. Buzz often stems from teens and 20-somethings, but it spreads across all generations. It's not a guarantee of success, but it sure do help. Someone like Candidate Y could have the perfect message and come from the electoral college linchpin state and have an amazing resume and background, but if he's not "buzzing," no one's donating to him and no one's listening to him and the votes won't be there. An exciting candidate with buzz gets covered.

I could be way off base, but it just feels like the days of "standard" candidates that fit the traditional mold are over. No more like Clinton, Romney, Kerry, Gore, Bush, Nixon, Kasich, McCain, Dole, etc; people stepping up because it's their time or they've built the perfect resume. Candidates that can successfully utilize new media to attract buzz and bucks will do better than the ones who may look great on paper and may have been solid contenders in years past. JMHO, but the ability to go viral is how presidential races will be won, from the primaries through the general. ETA: Let's just hope going forward, we don't get any other evil clowns attracting the most buzz.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 12-03-2018 at 10:17 PM.
  #198  
Old 12-04-2018, 09:02 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,903
Biden: I'm the most qualified person in the country to be president.

Nothing official yet, and from the story, it sounds like he's got more than a few reasons lined up not to run, but it sure sounds like he's running.
  #199  
Old 12-04-2018, 09:37 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It can be pretty safely assumed that anyone declaring this far in advance is a crank candidate. I mean, the game basically starts now that the midterms are over and serious people are quietly gauging and building their support and resources.
I don’t think Delaney is a crank. He is an unknown businessman and ultra-moderate. He is taking the only possible path to becoming president for someone with no name recognition: Get in early and build support in Iowa. Rick Santorum made a little run on that path, also John Edwards if I’m not mistaken. You could argue that they were senators and eclipse Delaney in seriousness. Although I would say a true self-made businessman might have more cache in 2020 than a lower-profile senator.

I don’t think everyone who runs who has only a tiny chance of winning is a crank, but I’m open to other definitions. He presented well in one interview I saw.
  #200  
Old 12-04-2018, 11:11 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,350
Avenatti just pulled out...

Sorry! Didn't mean to make a sex joke.

He has withdrawn...

Dammit!

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/...00911559192577
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 02:30 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