Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 18 Jan 2019, 11:51 am

It seems like the political bulletin board at Redscape these days resembles the sum total of the DNC's political savvy, namely, empty.

Speaking of which, Elizabeth Warren announced she's running for the primary.

Other names have been thrown around as well including the Berndog, Oprah, Hilary, Michelle Obama, Bloomberg, de Blasio, Biden, Julian Castro, Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, and a laundry list of other no juice candidates.

By my estimation, it will not be difficult to topple agent orange. I think his days are numbered. I also am of the opinion that if the Democratic candidate sells himself/herself by creating an image of someone done with entrenchment politics, who is soundly pragmatic, that person will win the presidency.

Never mind the worn out tactic of playing to the base from the get go and only later moving to the center. That won't work. At least not this time. The average bear is sick of both sides, sick of polemics and sick of those who downgrade the office of the presidency. The trick as always will be to win the fencers. And to do that it will take the perfect candidate that appeals to both the demigods and the reptiles.

So far, no one from the dem side looks promising and I include the Berndog in that assessment.

My guess is that the time bomb is now ticking and it's only a matter of time until the DNC strikes out again with whoever it is they decide to secretly endorse prior to the primaries.

My fear is that the DNC will fumble once more and go with some half baked nutter who will attempt to play entrenchment politics with Trump and lose, leaving us stuck with agent orange for another 4 years.

It's not a question of whether or not the DNC is capable of such stupidity. That much was proven last time 'round. It's a matter of did the DNC learn any lessons from their 2016 index of errors? Not likely. Tom Perez is as awe inspiring as tea time at a poorly attended cricket match.

tick...tick....tick....tick...tick...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6934
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Jan 2019, 1:35 pm

Bernie Sanders: I respect his belief in his position, and he has charisma
Oprah: No political experience. The same claim used against Trump
Hilary: I had to stop laughing before typing a response. Security alone is a terminating cause
Obama: No political experience. The same claim used against Trump
Bloomberg: Financially an option. Socially not so much
De Blasio: If you can't get support of The View talking heads, are you really an option for the Dems?
Biden: Good ol' Joe. I like the man. Plays politics and wouldn't excite the base. Would get the middle
Castro: Way too political
Booker: Wouldn't go well in the upper Midwest and could have the same fate as Hilary in 2016
Harris: Unknown entity

I see another option... A third party middle of the road candidate. Especially if the Left and the Right post extremists. Manchin? Lieberman?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11020
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Jan 2019, 3:02 pm

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... nd-bernie/

Winning the Democratic nomination is the first step...
Trying to appeal to all of the 5 distinct constituencies is difficult.
538, linked above does an interesting analysis of this..

Kamala Harris is likeliest winner IMHO.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 26 Jan 2019, 8:20 am

Is Trump definitely going to be the nominee ?I realise that sitting Presidents usually don't even face a meaningful challenger, but this is not a normal President.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3113
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Jan 2019, 10:23 am

Manchin? Lieberman? I almost choked on my Cocoa Puffs. Those guys are barely Democrats...

Bernie: I love him...but he's like 500 years old.
Biden: He's like 1,000 years old. And I don't like him nearly as much as Bernie...
Michelle Obama: She's got charisma and that self-confidence that a lot of black women have...BUT she doesn't want the job. That's kind of a problem...also enough of political dynasties. We're a democracy, not an aristocracy.
Booker, Harris: I dont see that either one of them has done that much. They're both smart and have a certain amount of charisma. But they aint got Obama-like appeal.
Bloomberg: One billionaire president is enough, thank you...
De Blasio: This is not college football where Alabama can win the national championship even though they can't win the SEC! New Yorkers don't seem to like him that much...
Beto O'Rourke: He can inspire people. And that's a pretty rare commodity right now.
Castro: He's young, he's Hispanic. His grandmother came here from Mexico...what else?
Gavin Newsome: I think he's got the policies and charisma...but seems like he wants to focus on California. That could change...
Kirsten Gillibrand: Very attractive which doesnt hurt. But she's not just a pretty face. Saw her in an interview and she was impressive. But started out in a conservative upstate New York district and the views she had there (eg pro NRA) might come back to haunt her even though her views have "evolved".
Warren: Love her views. But that voice...no way. And the Indian ancestry thing is just too embarassing..

I don't see bland working this time. The Democratic candidates that opposed Hillary (other than Bernie) were so awful last time. I think it will be someone voters will be excited about--Gillenbrand, Newsom, or O'Rourke.

And yeah, Sass, I doubt Trump is even going to run. The Mueller Report is going to make it impossible.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6934
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 26 Jan 2019, 3:14 pm

Those two are barely Republicans either. Perhaps balance could be beneficial, Freeman.

Personally I would love to see Rubio or Cruz running again.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3113
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Jan 2019, 5:49 pm

For a toad Ted Cruz has a lot of charisma ...Rubio seems innocuous enough. Wait, is that a qualification for president? Romney is far more preferable to me (If I were force to choose a Republican). John Kasich is ok. That's about it.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3113
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Jan 2019, 6:20 pm

I didn't know they were considering running. .but I like Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown a lot. And they could help in those Midwestern states. Recent events have made me a lot more fond of Midwestern nice, anyway...
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3295
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 01 Feb 2019, 7:43 am

I find the left's furor over Howard Schultz completely stupid. Can you imagine a debate stage with Trump, Schultz and Kamala Harris? Howard Schultz is going to take more votes from Harris than Trump? That's crazy. If the left were smart (which they really aren't when it comes to electioneering) they'd be begging Schultz to run.

Here's a thought: Maybe Schultz actually knows what I just wrote, and is going to run just to wreck any reelection chance of Donald Trump. If you frame it that way, its pretty fricking heroic.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4825
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 01 Feb 2019, 11:49 am

freeman3 wrote: Recent events have made me a lot more fond of Midwestern nice, anyway...


do tell ...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3113
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 01 Feb 2019, 11:49 am

Howard Schultz is awful and is part of the problem. What he wants to be is the benevolent billionaire bestowing crumbs on his employees and being seen as the progressive owner. But he is against a federal minimum wage, was against Seattle's minimum wage increase, opposes federally mandated healthcare. He is emblematic of a Democratic Party which has become dependent on contributions from wealthy people who are liberal on social issues...but not so progressive on economic issues. Given that our society is seeing wealth increasingly going to the few while most people's incomes stay stagnant, the idea that we would have a billionare nominee who opposes basic rights for employees is just anathema to liberals. And if that makes Democrats lose... so what. Democrats have to stand for something

I took a look at stock growth fromou 1990 (wanted to go further but had trouble finding median wages going back further) and the Dow went from 2700 to 25,000 during that period. That's about a 9,500% growth in less than 30 years (33% a year). Median wages rose from about $15,000 to a little over $30,000. So that's about 100% growth. Inflation was about 65% so basically median wages rose about 1% a year while stocks rose 32% per year. The result is that 80% of the country is living paycheck to paycheck. And we're going to put in a guy who goes ballistic when there is talk about modest taxes on those with high incomes?

I think part of the anger is that Schultz has been exposed as a charlatan. I think most people thought oh Starbucks treats its employees decently and it's his company...so he's not a bad guy. And then he is against basic stuff that will make people's life better? He's right...he is not a progressive. Just another Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, etc. who want people to bow to them because they are great philanthropists but do not believe in really helping average people. Just pure selfish egoism.
Last edited by freeman3 on 01 Feb 2019, 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3113
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 01 Feb 2019, 11:56 am

I guess RJ I think Trump is the epitamy of a person without any ability to put hinself in another man's shoes. No empathy. And whether Democratic or Republican I think we need someone who can do that.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11020
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 Feb 2019, 12:19 pm

freeman3
Howard Schultz is awful and is part of the problem.

Elizabeth Warren
“We have a billionaire who says he wants to jump into the race and the first issue he’s raised is no new taxes on billionaires?” “Let’s see how that goes.”
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3295
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 03 Feb 2019, 10:29 am

rickyp wrote:freeman3
Howard Schultz is awful and is part of the problem.

Elizabeth Warren
“We have a billionaire who says he wants to jump into the race and the first issue he’s raised is no new taxes on billionaires?” “Let’s see how that goes.”


Yeah, that's right. Freeman, don't vote for him. But this guy isn't going to be taking many votes from Democrats. He's going to be taking most from Trump, or whomever the Republicans nominate. If they had a strategic brain in their heads, Dems would STFU and let Howard Schultz be Howard Schultz.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3113
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Feb 2019, 4:28 pm

You could be right. I just know that I dont want him as the Democratic nominee. If he ran as an independent that could be a good thing. But maybe not. He is more Democratic than Republican, right? So he is more likely to hurt a Democratic nominee I would think. But I have no certainty about it.