I’m sorry I compared him to Putin, but honestly, it doesn’t sound like we know jack all about this McRaven guy’s politics.
Remember Eisenhower? The GOP thought they finally had someone in to undo the New Deal, and he looked at the electorate and said no. Picking someone non-ideological purely to appeal to centrists is a great way to ratify what you think is extreme on the other side.
But hey, whatever. McRaven’s probably not going to run, and if he does, he won’t make it as far as Jim Webb did in 2015.
Raging foaming mouth doesn’t sell people on you. Most people have no idea what’s going on in a debate, they just gauge things by the body language and this is the body language of a person who isn’t under control.
Slamming someone mightily, while maintaining composure, is more meaningful.
The role of a politician is not to endorse a particular policy, it’s to do research, talk to people, and make a determination of what makes the most sense.
If someone is reasonable, that’s more useful than someone with ideological purity.
Ideological purity gets you Communism and the Robber Barons of the 19th Century. Non-ideological purity gets you things that are amalgamations of the best parts of different ideas, arranged in a way that works in a real world under real world constraints.
Why do people keep throwing out the same old names that everyone knows? They lose. The last three D Presidents came from deep in the pack - Carter, Clinton, Obama. Let the people decide. The DNC picks people like Clinton and Kerry and Dukakis. Smart and accomplished people, but losers. Don’t let the DNC pick the candidate. I don’t care if it’s their turn or they’ve earned a shot. Winners emerge, they don’t get chosen.
If he makes it as far as my primary, I’m going with John Hickenlooper. Smart, funny, tough, and runs a rockstar state surrounded by dying states - Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming.
I firmly believe and am worried that running a strong progressive candidate (Sanders for example) would only strenghten Trump’s base and be a clear advantage for the incumbent to get a second term.
We all know that something approaching 85-90 percent of the voting public already know if they are or are not voting for Trump. The key to a democratic win lies in that 10-15 percent, many of which voted for Trump more as a statement AGAINST Hillary than a statement for Trump. Conversely, I believe a centrist or moderate to conservative democract running a good campaign would crush Trump in the key areas like the rust belt, steel country and where there are other concentrations of blue collar workers that were tired of old politics and gravitated to Trump’s message as an “outsider” in 2016.
But IMO if the democrats run any far left candidate (and to a lesser extent Biden who exemplifies old school democratic policies) they run a strong risk of losing the same voters in 2016. While I would really like to see what Sanders could accomplish with 4 years, I think Warren and Sanders play right into Trump’s best case scenario.
While I know candidates like Steve Bullock and Bill McRaven are too unknown to be seriously considered at this point it is early and that can change quickly with tens of millions of dollars and a good campaign.
His base is his base. That 33 to 35% will come out.
The D side base, well I think will all come out whether or not the candidate is progressive or centrist.
I believe that a progressive or a centrist can appeal to the Independents, depending on the campaign that is run. Me, I lean centrist, but I think either can do the job, and I will rally around either as well.
General McRaven sounds like a shoo-in for victory if there’s no skeleton in his closet.
(There were at least ten Generals who became President during the 19th century, most winning easily. During the 20th century, Ike was the only General-President; Teddy Roosevelt was a Colonel.)
Do we know how he stands on key issues? (Is he on record calling for Trevor Noah to apologize? :rolleyes: )
His name is too weird/silly to make it. I know it sounds ridiculous, but it really isn’t. A presidential campaign is a marketing campaign. A marketing campaign is based upon selling people a name. That name has to be a good one.
Ten generals who became President? Jackson, Tippecanoe, Taylor, Grant, and who else?
We’re not in the Indian Wars anymore. I don’t think people are going to choose a career military man now. (John McCain was liked by the press corps, and the press made him popular, yes. But he was a lobbyist and then a legislator for a long time, and not a flag officer.)
I don’t want to vote for “a loopy hick,” but we already had Bill and Hilly from the Ozarks, and Dwight Eisenhower, Ronnie Reagan, and those Dutch guys did all right.
All that more “wierd/silly” than Barack Obama? At least Hickenlooper doesn’t rhyme with “Osama”, so no worries about any semantic cheap shots from the alt-right - all the best they’ll do is “loopy”.
Gore, Bush, and Trump aren’t exactly the most orthodox surnames I’ve ever heard either.
Hick ‘n’ Looper’s BBQ Ribs makes sense. President Hickenlooper does not. Not while running against 40+ million voters who swoon when his opponent makes fun of physically handicapped people. If they aren’t named something like Jonathan Stavendish, the Dems are doomed.
Barack Obama is actually a nice sounding name. The only baggage that comes with it is bullshit. As a word, the syllables of it roll off the tongue. The vowels and consonants are combined in a pleasing manner. The surname moreso than the forname: from a phonetic standpoint, names that begin and end with vowels, and have three syllables, are good for marketing - there’s no end to the number of medical and personal care products that follow this pattern. It didn’t matter that it sounded like Osama, except to some morons whose party lost the election twice to Obama. The name Obama is a great name. People like saying it, people like hearing it, and people like seeing it written in print. Even from a visual standpoint it was helped by the fact that it begins with an O - a letter that is not only a letter but also a shape which is universally used in human culture to represent a variety of things. The name “Obama” is a great name for any product, including a political candidate.
Trump’s base will make moldy hay of any opponent’s name. Forecasting doom if the name isn’t John Smith sounds rash to me.
My view is not quite as roseate; regardless, a perfectly fine name.
Would like to hear arguments why Gavin Newsome isn’t potential within these next two years.
Or Amy Klobuchar, (VP) for whom I’ll challenge anyone to name anybody who has made more efforts at bipartisan reaching out, than her.
Sounds like a bad day for Dreyfuss on the Orca.