Yeah, I'm not sure. As far as the charisma motivating thing goes, Here are my thoughts. 1. Buttigieg - Has charisma, and does well explaining himself in short soundbite levels. 2. Warren - not obvious but she has made a career of outperforming expectations. She does well at explaining how to accomplish the goals and policies she puts forward. 3. Beto - once he's in the general he would have a shot if he campaigns the way he did for Senator. So far he hasn't been able to do that, so who knows if he could. 4. Harris - She has a lower ceiling and seems like she could make small but costly mistakes. 5. Biden - Will be consistently a good comparison to Trump. But his intangibles and swings have an equal chance of going either way. He is just as likely to come up with a great zinger to sting Trump and play well with the populace as he does to say something stupid that will become attached to him and brand him forever. His age alone may turn some people off to being enthusiastic. 6. Bernie - May have some of the outsider appeal to eat into Trump's support. His passion will be a plus. His inability to be specific about how to carry out his most revolutionary ideas in short sound-bite length speeches.. That might turn off the middle of the road voters and independents. All of this is pure speculation. There are enough twists and turns once the candidates are decided that anything is possible.
Nice take, FB. My favorite is Pete Buddigieg. I think he’s the most intelligent candidate running, and has experience that the rest lack with national security. That, and he’s smart enough to quickly understand complex issues. He would be making decisions depending less on his “gut” than some of the others. I imagine that my comment about him and national security will get a laugh or two, but it’ll likely be from those unfamiliar with his background. His only negative, from where I sit, is that he’s gay. Not a negative for me at all, but one can only imagine what trump might do with it. I like Warren’s ideas. I wish she was younger (she’s 69), and I wish she came across better than she does in the media. She would be the opposite of Jack Kennedy in 1960. Many listening to the famous debate on the radio with Nixon thought Nixon had won. Those watching on TV gave JFK a clear win. Warren will come across well if you can’t see her, but she doesn’t come across well on TV, in my opinion. I think Beto is toast. He’s disappointed me, and clearly a lot of other folks. Harris? Not sure what to think of her. The attack on Biden was clearly calculated ahead of time. I didn’t care for that. Still thinking about her. Biden? His performance in the debate was a disappointment. I think he would beat trump given the chance, but he may not get the chance. Also, really old. This isn’t China, where age is revered. The rest? They’ve yet to make an impression.
69 is fine. Younger than Trump, Biden, and Bernie. Plus she's a woman so her life expectancy is longer, and she looks pretty spry too. She has plenty of productive years left.
This poll below is more specific. Medicare for all is popular, but loses steam fast if is NOT a choice. Medicare as a choice (you can said aca/obamacare with super dupler gov option) is extremely popular. NPR / PBS poll 7/15-17, +/- 3.5% http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con...Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1907190926.pdf#page=3 Do you think Medicare for all, that is a national health insurance program for all Americans that replaces private health insurance, is a good idea or a bad idea? Midwest Response Good idea - 41% Bad idea - 54% Unsure - 5% Among Democrat Good idea - 64% Bad idea 31% Do you think Medicare for all that want it, that is allow all Americans to choose between a national health insurance program or their own private health insurance, is a good idea or a bad idea? Midwest Response Good idea - 70% Bad idea - 26% Unsure - 4% Among Democrat Good idea - 90% Bad idea 8% Other of interest Thinking about the 2020 election, do you definitely plan to vote for Donald Trump for re-election as president or do you definitely plan to vote against him? Midwest Response Definitely vote for Trump - 39% Definitely vote against Trump - 55% Unsure - 6% National Register Voters Definitely vote for Trump - 39% Definitely vote against Trump - 53% Unsure - 8% Compare to 2012: Definitely vote for Obama - 38% Definitely vote against Obama - 48% Unsure - 14% A Universal Basic Income of $1,000 per month for each American 18 or older? (Yang got a lot of work to do) Good idea - 26% Bad idea - 66%
I'm absolutely for ranked voting, but it's no so simple in a presidential election. Ranked voting is much more effective in getting someone that isn't a D or R in local election and it help with generating more "what will I do for you" than "why you shouldn't vote for the other person" voting, but for presidential election, it primary benefit (and that can be to either party) is to safeguard against a spoiler. Over time it might have a bigger impact, but that's a long way down the road. I also don't think voting is as simple as voting your conscience. That indeed can be for you, but it's a funny thing we engage in. Logically, it makes very little sense to vote as an individual - your single vote has probably a less change of picking the winner than winning a lottery ticket. But we do it anyway (well, about 40-45% of us) and I think that's because we are all recognize that we vote as part of a bloc, not as an individual. In a sense, you are responsible to not just yourself, but to your bloc, which is what make sticking to your "bloc" (party, identity, political leaning) so hard to break - and which is what also make many people actually vote for someone that is "evil" and against their conscience. There are of course many other reasons for voting, but I think this IS the reason why so many people are *pissed* that someone that belong to one party or political lending decided to not exercise their vote.
This. I’m not quite sure why this is so hard to understand. There are a lot of moderates that don’t want what Sanders and even Warren is pushing.
It’s your vote and you can vote who you want or for no one. If you consider yourself a progressive this thinking is very short sighted. You think it’s dishonest, fear monger if to talk about the dangers of Trump, well then do you think it was better to have Trump getting to nominate two USSC seats rather than Clinton, especially one who during his hearing admitted he hated the Left? Ginsburg and Breyer aren’t young imagine Trump getting to pick two more nominees for a 7-2 Conservative majority that will be on the court far longer than Trump is in office. I’ve heard “liberals say that extinction is forever” and that we only have a few years left to do anything meaningful in Climate Change. Consider then how much more damage a Trump led EPA, DOD and Dept of Interior can do. I understand as there are few candidates that excite me. I can’t stand Biden think Sanders and warrens policies are pie in the sky and could do damage to our economy. I might not even vote in the Democratic primary.. Next summer though I will donate, campaign and do whatever else I can for any of them. This election isn’t going to be a layup. Trump has the power of incumbency, a fanatical base and if the economy is still close to what it is now a very big boost. As I said earlier too he could theoretically lose the popular vote by 10% and still win, two weeks ago he reached 47% in his approval rating. If the democrats take it for granted that their candidate will win that is could lead to a repeat of 2016.
Voting for people who don't represent my values, thus further encouraging the Democrats to be something I disagree with that I feel hurts the country, is the epitome of short sightedness.
I understand your concern that enabling the Democratic party to feel like they can win with kick the can down the road establishment corporate candidates like Biden then they will just keep on doing it but keep in mind 4 more years of Trump means a even more stacked SCOTUS which is even more detrimental to proggresive causes. That's why for me it's Warren for the primaries but if she loses I'll literally vote for anyone in the Democratic field over Trump in the general.
Yep. That's a price that may have to be paid. Maybe Democrats will move left enough to get my vote. Maybe not. But I won't be bullied or coerced into voting for a Democrat ever again. Getting lectured about electability by Hillary supporters from 2016 (the one group of folks who really should be swimming in humble pie and self-doubt) and having them preemptively blaming me for Trump's re-election (another rich irony) only compounds and reassures my feelings on this issue.
Yes I agree that the "we need a centrist to be safe" posters don't have much legs to stand on with the disaster of the 2016 election. But it is what it is. People have a natural attraction to centrist because at face value it seems to be pragamtic.
Surprised none of you are on the Kamala train. She probably has the best chance to beat Trump. 1. Kamala would likely destroy Trump in debates due to experience and plenty of material to attack Trump with. I see Biden getting the Jeb Bush treatment in debates by Trump if he's nominated. Kamala will not be pushed around. 2. She will likely pretend to be progressive to win the left nomination, and then switch to a more moderate stance once getting it. I see her bringing in a white/male moderate candidate for VP to help her get these votes. Only issue I see is lack of charisma.
I agree that Kamala would be the best to dismantle Trump in a one on one debate setting but at the same time I don't think she can attract Midwestern voters. I think Warren is much more capable of that.
The problem I have seen with Harris is that she seems like the type of a candidate to lead and make decisions based on polls and reactions as opposed to actually showing leadership. After getting some points from the debate it seems like she just kept trying to milk the issue because it was in the press a lot. I think voters, even if they don't see through it, will still smell something insincere and that won't play in areas that already voted against Hillary.
With all due respect, people like you helped give us 2 very conservative Supreme Court justices that’ll be there for decades, as well as dozens of Federal district judges that will be there for life. You claim it makes a difference that you simply won’t vote. What utter nonsense. No matter how you slice it, you’re helping to elect trump. If you didn’t vote for Clinton in 2016 out of a stubborn sense of remaining “true to your principles,” you helped elect trump. Congratulations. People like you, when it comes to politics, drive me crazy. People like you would rather see the country ruined than go against what they see as their “principles.” You will be the target of attacks on the honesty and character of whoever gets the Democratic nomination by both the GOP and whoever helps them. Why? Because you and those like you are seen as targets to influence to either vote for trump, vote for someone else, or stay at home. I voted against Nixon in 1972 when I was an independent voter for two reasons. I was ( and I remain) a liberal, and while Nixon would be seen as moderate or “worse” by today’s GOP, he was a conservative back then. He also continued the Vietnam War for years after saying he would end it, leading to thousands of more needless deaths and tens of thousands maimed, and that was “just” those in the military of the United States and our allies. The other reason is that I believed he was behind Watergate and was a crook. Today? I would vote for a dog catcher before I’d vote for trump or stay home. With all due respect.
I will point out that Clinton didn’t lose because of her issues and policies. In fact that is probably what got her the majority. She ran a godawful campaign and got blindsided by Comey. That had nothing to do with her ideological position. Further if it’s humble pie I’m not sure the Progressives should be crowing when their candidate didn’t even make it to the general. I know it was fixed, DNC rigged it, etc.. let’s remember that Sanders lost by millions of actual votes to Clinton in the primary. There would be an argument for that Sanders only lost cause the DNC rigged it if the difference was in super delegates or was close but it wasn’t actually close. If we look at more recent history yes progressives did well in 2018, but they did well primary in districts that were already safely in the D camp. It was because of moderates like Sharice David and Angie Craig that Pelosi holds the gavel.
I nearly always vote for the Centrist in the democratic primary. The one exception is Clinton. I voted against her twice - once when she ran against Obama, and once when she ran against Sander. I don't support Sanders or think he would be an effective president. But I voted for him because I thought he had a better chance of beating Trump. I voted for Obama because I thought he would make a better president. The problem with Clinton (and Kerry) wasn't that they were centrists. It was that they were not likable by the middle of the country. They were centrists only liked by the left. Biden is very well-liked by the middle and thus represents the greatest threat to Trump as the left will vote for him and so will centrists.
I don't believe Bernie lost the primaries in 2016 because it was "rigged". I just believe that your mainstream cable, print and online media just subconsciously favored the more status quo politician and a politician like Bernie had a more uphill battle to climb. Anyways, Bernie isn't a preferred candidate of mine. I'm not sure he's suited for an executive position. He's more of an activist than a manger of a massive bureaucracy.
Also alienated 2 SCOTUS nominees with a non-vote. To Donny's credit, if he and loved ones have benefited from a Trump presidency, then it makes sense how a non-vote sits better with him than those affected negatively.
