|
Post by Optimus on Jun 20, 2019 23:37:15 GMT -5
I pretty much agree with Opty except for the whole Mayor Pete thing. I like him a lot. I'm impressed with his intelligence, and enjoyed the hell out of hearing him speak in fluent French and Italian, all the time knowing Trump can't even speak English. I also like the fact he didn't have bone spurs. But I wish he were Senator Pete, or Governor Pete before he ascended to President Pete. Plus he's younger than my kids. He's hella bright though, and if he were the nominee, he'd get my vote. I used to feel the same about Congressional or even gubernatorial experience. But, the overwhelming majority of Congress is trash and I'm not really sure anymore that being in the House or Senate gives you experience in anything except how to be petty and ineffective. And our current President is a reality show dumpster fire with zero experience, so it seems people are willing to overlook lack of experience (then again, look how it turned out for us last time). I'm not really convinced that anything adequately prepares someone for the job of President. Governor of a large state is slightly analogous, but nothing else comes close. Someone intelligent, fair, compassionate, and a rational thinker is what we need. If she or he has those qualities, they'll do fine picking up the rest. Nah, doesn't bother me, I kind of agree in a way. He's pretty close to my age, and I sometimes think that he might be too young. Buttigieg is young but he's very smart and level-headed and those two qualities trump age in my book. Besides, Teddy Roosevelt was 42 and John F. Kennedy was 43 when they took office, and they seemed to do okay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 9:43:41 GMT -5
From my own perspective.
I would much prefer that Buttigieg be older and have more experience. No question, in a pre-Trump world, I'd care a lot about that. But in a Trumpy world, my foremost question is "who can defeat Trump, and not him/herself be equally horrible as a president?"
Buttigieg is extremely smart and I also think he's the kind of guy who not only would surround himself with people who have experience and knowledge, but also would actually listen to them. (Taking aside every other objection I have with regard to Trump, even if you were to put the "best" people with him to advise him, he will resent them, not listen to them, and ultimately fire them.) I think he'd work well with our allies. If he doesn't get the nod in 2020, I hope he'll run for something else, and be a player in future elections. I'd like to see more of him.
I'd also prefer a candidate be younger than Biden. But again, that's secondary to "can they get elected" in this particular election. I'll add that the fact that his presidency would probably not be exciting is a yuuuuuuge appeal to me after this crazy-ass administration. I want a steady hand to put the chaos right. Steady and unexciting is good. And I'm really fucking tired of the attempts to smear him as a racist and a sexually-harassing creeper. FFS. Yes, he is overly huggy for some people's tastes in 2019, and yes, he's been a politician for a long time so he's necessarily worked side by side with some politicians who don't look so great to 2019 sensibilities. And yes, he sometimes suffers with foot-in-mouth syndrome -- though I submit it's not of a type to hurt American interests or alienate allies. But IMO Joe himself is a solidly decent human being who genuinely cares about this country and its citizens, and puts them before his own interests. And come on. No one with a brain actually thinks he's preying on 10-year-olds or grabbing women's asses or is a racist. Fuck the progressives out to torch Obama's VP to the ground with exaggerated smears. They will lose us this election. Criticizing and debating him is fine -- that's what a primary is for -- but the smear shit is bullshit. If they succeed in bringing Joe down with that garbage, they'll bring the party down with them. At this point, I am blocking as many progressives on Twitter as I am Trump supporters. Just get the fuck out of my timeline with that shit. I have no time for it. (There's simply nothing reasonable about some of the anti-Biden stuff they're floating -- they are literally saying he's a rapist and a racist. It's absurd, and for me, an instant block.)
Harris has grown in my opinion the more I watch her. I find her much more likable and more pragmatic and centrist than I once did, and I like her toughness. She's also (obviously, I think) very smart and utterly unflappable. Watching her take people on in hearings -- and also following her on Twitter and seeing a warm, likable, gracious human side -- has moved her into my top tier (and she was not always there). I think right now she's being eclipsed by the other top contenders -- Buttigieg is new and exciting, Warren is getting the "yay, smart progressive woman!" hoopla, Biden has the name recognition and being Obama's VP, and Sanders has his built-in Bernie Bros. But I see potential for her to break out of that, and if she gets more attention, I dunno, it's early days and I think she has potential to break out of the pack. I myself would vote for her without a qualm.
Warren is very smart. Unlike Sanders, she actually does have plans on how to pay for her ideas (you may or may not like her plans, but she has them). But I worry that the long-standing dislike for her in swing circles isn't something she'll easily shake. Unfortunately, I think despite her many merits, she plays right into some stereotypes that hurt her in a general election. (I think Harris is different on that account--the more I watch her, the less I feel she plays into a lot of the labels that have been slapped on her.) She takes Trump's ridiculous bait -- i.e., on that Pocahontas crap that she should have just ignored. It's less her fitness to be president and more my fear it would be 2016 all over again. I also think that despite her plans, unless we also got a Democratic Congress and Senate, few of them would get through. I think Biden, Harris, or Buttigieg would do better at pushing stuff through a divided government.
As for Sanders, I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, but I have multiple problems with him, and I've had them since before 2016. (1) He does not have solid plans to pay for his ideas. It's all fine and well to spout off promises, but I want to see some basic math on how we'll pay for it. Warren shows her math; Sanders not so much. (2) I don't trust his temperament at all, and I think that's a real problem. I don't give a rat's ass about occasional foot-in-mouth gaffes, but I do want someone who isn't easily triggered. I've seen enough of that this last few years. Temperament-wise, I think he's Trump (3) Dude has been in public life for quite some time now, and other than a lot of blustering, I'm hard-pressed to put actual accomplishments to his credit. (4) I don't think he has a clue on foreign policy, nor do I think he particularly cares about it. I think it matters a lot, and that we'll have a lot to set right with our allies -- I want a president who is knowledgeable, steady, and reasonably savvy. (5) Putin's bots on social media are pushing Sanders hard (and working overtime to bash Biden). Putin does not have our best interests in mind when he does so. (6) If elected, I think he stands less chance than any top candidate of pushing things through a divided government. Don't get me wrong, any candidate will have big difficulties doing so, but I think he has absolutely zero sense of when compromise is useful, necessary, and helpful, and finally (7) I don't think he'll bring on the fence swing voters out to vote for him. If he's the Dem candidate, they'll stay home. I'm very interested in his having some appeal for Mikey -- but then, it doesn't sound like it's strong enough to get Mikey to the polls, and it sounds like it would only apply if Sanders were running as a third-party candidate, if I don't misunderstand Mikey. And it sounds like, as I suspected would be the case, our other swing people are pretty solidly anti-Sanders.
I think there are some other decent candidates, but they're all polling so low, I don't think they'll break out of the pack at this point. Maybe they'll surprise me, but the field is so damn huge, barring some spectacular event, I'm not sure they stand much chance of getting attention.
YMMV, obviously. But that's mine.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jun 21, 2019 13:55:59 GMT -5
Haven't had time to read the whole thread or responses, but here's where I stand:
The GOP nominee is Trump. The Democratic nominee is Warren. There's a third party nominee you find inoffensive but who certainly will not win. Would you vote Trump, Warren, third party, or stay home? 3rd Party most likely The GOP nominee is Trump. The Democratic nominee is Biden. There's a third party nominee you find inoffensive but who certainly will not win. Would you vote Trump, Biden, third party, or stay home? 3rd Party for sure The GOP nominee is Trump. The Democratic nominee is Buttigieg. There's a third party nominee you find inoffensive but who certainly will not win. Would you vote Trump, Buttigieg, third party, or stay home? Buttigieg, maybe above 3rd party as well. All conditional as I don't know him well. The GOP nominee is Trump. The Democratic nominee is Harris. There's a third party nominee you find inoffensive but who certainly will not win. Would you vote Trump, Harris, third party, or stay home? Toss up between 3rd party and Harris. I'm open The GOP nominee is Trump. The Democratic nominee is Sanders. There's a third party nominee you find inoffensive but who certainly will not win. Would you vote Trump, Sanders, third party, or stay home? 3rd Party.
If it comes down to my vote and Trump again, I'd only be swayed by those I'm open to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 14:55:55 GMT -5
Vince, I'm interested that you seem to prefer Warren to Biden. I would have predicted the opposite. Why?
ETA:
One thing my informal polling here and among real life acquaintances is indicating to me is that Harris may have a stronger draw for swing voters than Dems are giving her credit for. I actually think that makes sense -- as I've said, I've warmed to her as well. But I dunno whether she can break out of her plateau in the primary.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jun 21, 2019 15:20:33 GMT -5
In terms of Biden positions, some I'd prefer him over her, but I think he's a hypocrite and I don't trust him or his intentions. I don't have a lot of warm and fuzzies over Warren, and I think she's probably too left of center for me, but I don't have too many reasons right now to doubt her integrity over that of the average politician.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 15:26:02 GMT -5
Why is he a hypocrite, in your view? When you say you don't trust his intentions, what is it you fear he might do? ETA: I'll stress again that this is a thread where I am seeking information rather seeking to argue or attack. I genuinely want to understand where those who aren't dead set on either Trump or "whoever the Dem nominee is" are coming from. I admit that's partly because I ultimately hope to persuade as many people as possible to vote for Not Trump, but it will also factor into my own thinking and my discussions with other Democrats. So. Someone else might swat people or bicker with them in this thread, but it won't be me.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 21, 2019 16:32:49 GMT -5
Re Harris: As I said, I might vote for her if she's the Dem nominee. I also might not. I need to see/hear more from her to make that decision.
As to "either Trump or whoever the Dem nominee is," I'm just not willing to vote party line, no matter the contest, no matter the circumstances. Again, I think candidates are supposed to earn votes. And the reason why we get so many crappy politicians is because so many people vote party line, again and again and again.
If the whole of the Dem party feels that Trump must defeated, no matter what, then the whole of the Dem party is free to cast their votes for the top third party candidate, in order to secure those votes along with their own.
That won't happen, of course, because most aren't actually willing to abandon their party. And in that respect, I find it ridiculous that so many of them think it's fair to pressure independents--and Libertarians, and Greens--to vote Dem, just as it was ridiculous that so many of them blamed Clinton's loss to Trump--to some degree--on these other groups.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 16:59:50 GMT -5
For my own part, if a third party candidate who was not Trump stood an actual chance of prevailing, I might vote for that person. I see no such third party candidate on the horizon.
If I thought a Republican primary candidate who wasn't Trump or as horrifying to me as Trump stood a chance of beating him, I'd switch my registration to Republican to give that person any boost I could in the primary. I actually am okay with Weld (indeed, if the race were between Weld and Sanders or Gabbard, he'd get my vote). But I know there's no way in hell he's going to beat Trump in the Republican primary. I don't see anyone else primarying him that will beat him, either -- the fix is in. It's gonna be Trump, and 90% of Republicans will vote for Trump in blind lockstep. That's the reality we're living with on the GOP side -- he could literally do anything, and he'll be the nominee and net virtually all the Republican vote in the general election, except for the stalwart NeverTrumps.
For me, the 2020 election is entirely about defeating Trump because I consider him to be horrifying and bad for the country and its citizens in a ton of ways, four more years of him is a terrifying prospect to me, and IMO pretty much anyone, up to and including a rotting corpse, would be an improvement. And the reality is, in 2020 the only person who might stand a chance of getting him out is whoever the Democratic candidate is.
I'd cross party lines and happily if it would assist in beating Trump. I've voted third party before; I'm not allergic to it. In this election, though, there's no question it will not assist in that goal--it will work against it. So, for the record, that's why I personally will not be crossing party lines in 2020. It's a bit easier, I think, to choose a Democratic candidate a relative handful of swing voters and NeverTrumpers might be able to live with than it would be to persuade a yuuuuuuge swath of Democrats (as well as swing voters and NeverTrump Republicans) to go for a third party candidate. We already know about 40% of the country will vote Trump no matter what, so if one's goal is a president who is Not Trump, I think that's the logical path for me and people who feel the way I do to pursue, rather than saying "okay, I'll cross over and vote third party -- join me there, everyone!"
ETA:
The compromise I am absolutely willing to make in this election -- one that gets me some grief from some progressives -- is that I'm willing to throw money and my vote at a Democratic candidate who may not be my top favorite choice, but who might pull in enough support from independents and NeverTrumpers. Hence, my thread here, in fact.
If I thought that sufficient support from those quarters were a lost cause, as some progressives do, and that it was all about the base, I might make different choices than I likely will during the primary season.
And I'm willing to hold my nose in the general election if the NotTrump candidate with a chance of beating Trump is someone I'm not crazy about. I don't like Sanders, but I'll vote for him.
For me, it is ENTIRELY about getting Trump out of office. Party isn't even close to being the issue for me. Seriously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 18:43:52 GMT -5
So yeah, for the record, this isn't a "here's what you independent voters have to do or else" thread. This was the opposite -- a what can Democrats do (and in particular, me, in my small way) that might bring you and other independents on board?
If it's nothing, well, that might mean NT was right and I've been wrong.
My guess is that at least a portion of Biden's strong polling among Democrats is the belief that he's the best guy among current candidates to bring in independents -- in other words, that there are a lot of Democrats like me who are eager to make the tent broad enough to hold you. We're fighting with hard-core progressives who think we don't need or want you, and that, moreover, any compromises we might make to try to bring you on board are a waste of time. And of course others are eager to bring you in, but don't think any compromise is necessary because surely you'll go for Warren (or whoever) over Trump. In other words, the thing to do is rouse the base as much as possible, and count on you guys being disenchanted enough with Trump to at least not vote for him.
Me, I still think swing votes matter -- I don't believe the world has changed so much since 2008, when Obama won. The only question for me is which candidate is most likely to bring in the maximum number (since swing voters are not a monolithic block, obviously). I'd like a candidate whom moderates and liberals can both stomach enough to vote for, even if he or she is not their ideal, and I worry that Warren or Sanders isn't that person. But others disagree.
Anyway. That's a good part of the bickering that's going on among Democrats right now in the primary. And that's why I'm asking what you think.
ETA:
Just saying, if I were an unaffiliated voter who really disliked Trump, I'd do one of two things: (1) register as a Republican before the primaries and vote for Weld (or Kasich or whoever else might primary Trump who didn't turn my stomach), or (2) register as a Democrat and vote for whichever candidate I thought best. (If there were a third party candidate out there who looked strong, a third option might be going out hard trying to drum up support for him or her, but honestly, I don't see one emerging this time around.)
There's still time to shape this thing -- why not try for what you think is the best outcome (even if maybe you don't absolutely love any of them)? Too many people don't pay any attention until the general election in presidential years -- and then they bitch about what shit choices the rest of us made in the primaries. Okay, so get out there and help make better choices. Same with elections lower down. The time to get involved is way the fuck earlier and lower down than a general election every four years. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
ETA:
And also just saying, even if you don't want to vote in the Dem primary, forming an opinion about the Democratic candidates and sharing it with Democrats might help. Some of us are eager to court you. You might be able to help move the needle in a direction you can at least live with. Just saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 20:53:21 GMT -5
I'd also like to hear why Haggis doesn't care for Biden, should he care to weigh in.
And if Mikey wants to tell, I'd be interested in why he's good with Sanders but is not okay with Warren or the Dem platform.
Again, my interest here is in thinking through whether, and if so, how, Democrats can build a bigger tent without chasing out the people already in it -- for 2020 in particular, but also beyond.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 22, 2019 8:58:09 GMT -5
In this election, though, there's no question it will not assist in that goal--it will work against it. So, for the record, that's why I personally will not be crossing party lines in 2020. It's a bit easier, I think, to choose a Democratic candidate a relative handful of swing voters and NeverTrumpers might be able to live with than it would be to persuade a yuuuuuuge swath of Democrats (as well as swing voters and NeverTrump Republicans) to go for a third party candidate. We already know about 40% of the country will vote Trump no matter what, so if one's goal is a president who is Not Trump, I think that's the logical path for me and people who feel the way I do to pursue, rather than saying "okay, I'll cross over and vote third party -- join me there, everyone!" What you say is likely accurate. But let's be clear why: it's because a huge percentage of the Dem party will vote Dem no matter what, Trump or no Trump. Really, they're no different than those who will vote Trump no matter what (the great majority of whom are actually voting Repub no matter what).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2019 10:46:44 GMT -5
From my perspective, in this particular election, I don't see a sane alternative to voting Dem no matter what.
The certain alternative is Trump continuing to hold the nuclear codes, break down norms, grift, etc., etc. IMO, there is nothing worse, all alternatives are better, there is no question about the lesser evil, and the greater evil is really, really bad. And the only candidate who stands a chance in hell of defeating him is the Dem candidate, whoever that might be.
But if you don't think that's true at this point, after all we've seen, there's probably nothing I say that will convince you.
I had hoped we might choose a candidate who would pull independents into the tent. But I do begin to wonder if after all rousing maximum enthusiasm among the base would be easier and more effective then trying to read tea leaves about what independents want.
If the likely outcome if Dem bend over backwards making compromises to try to court independents, and the result is independents still say it's not good enough, and meanwhile Dems lose enthusiasm among their own base... well, that's a bad outcome that results in more Trump. I'm willing to compromise--I think a lot of us are--but that's to gain a result that is Not Trump.
As it stands, I haven't a clue what independents want--just a sense that they dislike everything, but I have not a clue as to what they'd think is better (at least acceptable), or what specifically they dislike. FWIW, I'm less sure than I was when I started the thread. (And yes, I know you're not a monolithic block, but I am having trouble even getting a sense of what different flavors of independents want.)
Not sure how we go about trying to bring independents into the tent when we don't know what kind of tent they want. I'm serious.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 22, 2019 11:33:46 GMT -5
Again, I think's that accurate, i.e. the only candidate who can win over Trump will be a Dem candidate. But that is true because--again--most Dem voters are unwillingly to vote anything other than Dem, end of story (just like most Repub voters will only vote Repub)*. So from my perspective, such Dem voters can't fairly complain about third part voters, about independents who don't choose to vote Dem in this election or any other, since they would themselves never consider voting anything other than Dem.
And I still say it's up to candidates to earn votes. If a given candidate can't earn enough votes to win, that's on them and their campaign.
* Really, the base of both parties is more like the base of a sport team's fans than anything else, at this point in time. That sucks (though I guess it's still better than all of those people who can't be bothered to vote, at all).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2019 11:59:37 GMT -5
Yes, I realize that this is your maxim. I have always known it. I've even subscribed to it in less crazy times, when the main party candidates were, e.g., Obama and McCain (both of whom I could ultimately live with and didn't think were an utter catastrophe, even if I might prefer one over the other, or someone else over both).
I am taking that maxim into the current world in which we live, where I personally see utter disaster on one side that I'd like to escape. I'm not even asking you to endorse my view that one side is utter disaster. I'm merely asking:
HOW DO WE EARN YOUR VOTE, INDEPENDENTS? WE HAVE 20+ CANDIDATES -- ANY OF THEM YOU'D PREFER? ANY THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY STAND A FIGHTING CHANCE OF GETTING THE NOD? WHAT SPECIFICALLY DO YOU LIKE ABOUT THEM? WHAT DON'T YOU LIKE ABOUT THE REST OF THEM? ANY YOU'D NEVER VOTE FOR IN A TRILLION YEARS, WHATEVER THE ALTERNATIVE? WHY? WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT KAMALA HARRIS THAT ISN'T ALREADY OUT THERE? WHY DO YOU THINK BIDEN HAS BAD MOTIVES? THROW US A BONE AND HELP PEOPLE LIKE ME HELP CHOOSE A CANDIDATE YOU CAN LIVE WITH WHILE IT IS STILL POSSIBLE.
Seriously, because otherwise this is kind of like that fairy tale chick who keeps setting random impossible tasks for her suitors at whim and then ridiculing them, telling them their efforts aren't good enough to win her hand. In the end, I think she ends up living in a hovel. And that's kind of what I'm afraid of here--except we'll all end up in the hovel. We may not be able to chose royalty and a castle here that is perfectly to everyone's taste. But maybe we can get a comfortable house that most of us can live with.
ETA:
I said this up thread, and I'll repeat it: I think a big part of Biden's strong polling among Democrats right now is the belief of many of us that's he's more likely than most candidates to pull in independent/NeverTrump votes. Not all of them, obviously, but the maximum number. It's why I threw money at him, specifically, when he threw his hat in the ring. I can live with him and I think he stands the best chance of winning.
But I (like many other "pro-compromise" Dems) are arguing with a lot of progressive Dems both on that approach in general and on Biden in particular. Which is why I'm trying to get a sense of whether my tack is a wise one, or not, and if not, what might be a wiser one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2019 12:33:17 GMT -5
Like, I'm trying to get a sense of how many people are out there in NeverTrump conservative Tom Nichol's camp:
And how many are more like Mikey -- i.e., only one candidate, or none at all, could possibly win them. And how many could say "yeah, I could go for these, or not for these."
My assumption has been that most are in the third camp. Just trying to figure out if my hunch is right, and if I'm on track on the type of things they might find attractive/unattractive/tolerable/intolerable in a candidate.
Again, lots of progressives think this is a complete waste of time and effort on my part and the part of pro-compromise Dems. They're doing their best to torch Biden to the ground (also what Putin's bots are trying to do, just saying...). IMO, most of the material they're working with is either outright false, grossly distorted or exaggerated, or way out of context. I can live with Uncle Joe. But that said, I'm happy to go for another candidate if that candidate is more likely to widen the tent. So, yeah, if you have a view, I'm interested.
|
|