TheCid

2020 Election

162 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Since I don't play the identity politics game I have no issue with a female President,  a black one, a Hispanic one, etc....     In all of the last 4 elections I have NOT voted for a white-male.  

But clearly many Dems do care about identity politics and this could be a big problem for the Dem party if their Presidential candidate ends up being a white male.   When the messaging is 'vote for someone that looks like you,  since only someone that does,  can really represent you' it is hard to rally people to get of their duff and go and vote for someone that doesn't look like them.     

Also,  

*if the Dem candidate isn't a white-male,  it will be difficult to motivate left-leaning white-males to vote as well.*

 

So I stand by my point; A party can't be a big-tent party and play identity politics at the same time.    Look at how the woman's march has melted-down due to identity politics. 

 

   

 The Democratic party ticket has to be representative.

Black voters are the foundation of the Democratic Party.

When you mentioned left-leaning white guys that's certainly a group--

but you can't discount or ignore the black voters or the Latino voters Who come out year after year after year.

When people support a party, finance a party, work for party, volunteer for a party and vote for a party, they do expect it to be a representative party --and that would certainly include the candidates on every level of government and within the party ranks.

So I would call for a balanced/ representative presidential ticket.

 

* And may I remind you that left-leaning white guys certainly did vote for President Obama in droves.*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

 I think we've had about 44 white guys who have already been president. LMREO

Maybe it's time to give everybody else an opportunity. LOL

 

Seriously I do remember how many people said when President Obama first ran in 2008--

 

"If that black guy screws up the presidency there will never be another president who is a black man for 100 years."

 

Then I even can remember people on this website some people saying something like this--

-- "We had one black man as president, so I don't think America is quite ready to have another one again so close to this one".

 

So the way this current white man has screwed up the presidency, I imagine there are a lot of people saying, and Not just in the United States, but all over the world--

America does not need to elect another  white man as president because they're so many  diverse, well educated, talented and experienced people in this country with other cultural viewpoints, gender viewpoints Etc that our country could benefit from.

These vast opportunities need to be explored and uncovered because maybe we have reached an impasse with one limited group of individuals.

You have only to look at the negative, non productive and non-representative GOP to see what a morass that group has perpetrated on this country.

America is diverse enough even now and it certainly will be easily in 20 years to elect any type of American who is well-educated, talented and experienced  to bring something innovative , different and positive to the table.

In 2020 and Beyond-- the white man is not the only game in town. 

I voted for Obama twice and Hillary, but it seems to me that many of the women and minorities being put forward lack substance.  Their primary qualifications appear to be their ethnicity or their gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Princess of Tap said:

 The Democratic party ticket has to be representative.

Black voters are the foundation of the Democratic Party.

When you mentioned left-leaning white guys that's certainly a group--

but you can't discount or ignore the black voters or the Latino voters Who come out year after year after year.

When people support a party, finance a party, work for party, volunteer for a party and vote for a party, they do expect it to be a representative party --and that would certainly include the candidates on every level of government and within the party ranks.

So I would call for a balanced/ representative presidential ticket.

 

* And may I remind you that left-leaning white guys certainly did vote for President Obama in droves.*

Yes,  white guys did vote for Obama but that was before the Dem party went nuts with identity politics.   E.g. implying that all white-males are deplorable by default and silly comments like the one Albright (really not so bright),  made about what happens to women that don't vote for a women.

I do agree the Dems will try to 'balance out' the ticket by selecting a V.P. candidate that isn't like the Presidential candidate. 

But typically voters don't pay much attention to the V.P. candidate but that changed with Palin.   So the question still remains if a 'mixed ticket' could appease enough voters that 'their kind' weren't being dished for the Dems to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheCid said:

I voted for Obama twice and Hillary, but it seems to me that many of the women and minorities being put forward lack substance.  Their primary qualifications appear to be their ethnicity or their gender.

You're trying to say the fact that they are female or from a minority group

 is the only reason that they're running and that those are their only qualifications?

 All the ones I've heard of are certainly more qualified than Donald Trump or Mike Pence.

 

 And why should women or minorities be more qualified than the white men who are already running the government anyway if we're going to go with your argument?--

Include there Mitch and Paul Ryan?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

You're trying to say the fact that they are female or from a minority group

 is the only reason that they're running and that those are their only qualifications?

 All the ones I've heard of are certainly more qualified than Donald Trump or Mike Pence.

 

 And why should women or minorities be more qualified than the white men who are already running the government anyway if we're going to go with your argument?--

Include there Mitch and Paul Ryan?

 

My guess is that Cid isn't going to want to get to deep into this discussion because, being a white-male,  people that are not often just brushoff comments from white-males by unfairly and unjustly implying the white-male is racist.    So I'll say it: The main reason most of these female and minority 'newcomers' are running is because of their identity since most of them are inexperienced.  That is a fact. 

Mitch and Ryan are NOT inexperienced (and Mitch has never ran for the office and Ryan was only a V.P. candidate,  so I don't see how they are even related to this).

Trump was clearly inexperienced but Pence isn't.  He has executive experience since he was a Governor.  

Anyhow,  mentioning Trump clearly shows your stance here:  the Dems should do what the GOP did in 2016; place identity politics above competency and experience. 

It also exposes another fallacy you have;  that when the main voting motive for a woman or person-of-color is a candidate's identity,  that is A-OK (if not what they should be doing),  but when a white-male  does this they are sexist and racist.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Yes,  white guys did vote for Obama but that was before the Dem party went nuts with identity politics.   E.g. implying that all white-males are deplorable by default and silly comments like the one Albright (really not so bright),  made about what happens to women that don't vote for a women.

I do agree the Dems will try to 'balance out' the ticket by selecting a V.P. candidate that isn't like the Presidential candidate. 

But typically voters don't pay much attention to the V.P. candidate but that changed with Palin.   So the question still remains if a 'mixed ticket' could appease enough voters that 'their kind' weren't being dished for the Dems to win.

I think Beto O'Rourke or Jim Webb would be the best candidates most likely to win swing states. Biden maybe but I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, darkblue said:

Please run Hillary again.

If not her - Ocasio.

Okay, now I want to see Ocasio deliver her clueless "What- I Didn't read enough books for you, buddy" line at a debate. :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

I think Beto O'Rourke or Jim Webb would be the best candidates most likely to win swing states. Biden maybe but I doubt it.

By the time November 2020 comes around, Democrats will have trouble winning any states.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gershwin fan said:

Okay, now I want to see Ocasio deliver her clueless "What- I Didn't read enough books for you, buddy" line at a debate. :lol: 

In her little teeny-bopper voice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

You're trying to say the fact that they are female or from a minority group

 is the only reason that they're running and that those are their only qualifications?

 All the ones I've heard of are certainly more qualified than Donald Trump or Mike Pence.

 

 And why should women or minorities be more qualified than the white men who are already running the government anyway if we're going to go with your argument?--

Include there Mitch and Paul Ryan?

 

Don't disagree most of them would be better than Trump, but is that the opinion the voters who show up in Nov will have.  I doubt it.  The Dems need a good, clearly qualified on many issues candidate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

I think Beto O'Rourke or Jim Webb would be the best candidates most likely to win swing states. Biden maybe but I doubt it.

While I agree with what you say here,  like I said, it all depends on if the Dems don't overplay their identity politics card.   The CNN article about Beto O'Rourke uses the phase;  "white privileged",  when discussing him.

So the question still remains;  will enough people-of-color and women turnout to vote in the General election for someone that isn't like them?      A lot will depend on how the women and people-of-color candidates frame\position white-male candidates during the Dem primary.    If they push the 'this white-guy can't really represent you' mantra too-much,   they may convince enough women and people-of-color voters in these swing states to sit out the election.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kamala Harris opens presidential bid

"......She skipped the formality of forming an exploratory committee, instead going all in on a presidential bid.

She plans a formal campaign launch in Oakland on Jan. 27. The campaign will be based in Baltimore, with a second office in Oakland.

Harris joins what is expected to be a wide-open race for the Democratic presidential nomination. There’s no apparent front-runner at this early stage, and Harris will face off against several Senate colleagues.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York have both formed exploratory committees. Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota are also looking at the race.......

 

Her staff says she plans to reject the assistance of a super PAC, as well as corporate PAC money. She’s invested heavily in cultivating a digital, small-dollar donor network.

Before her 2016 victory in the Senate race, Harris made her career in law enforcement. She served as the district attorney in San Francisco before she was elected attorney general.

Harris is likely to face questions about her law enforcement record, particularly after the Black Lives Matter movement and activists across the country pushed for a criminal justice overhaul. Her prosecutorial record has recently come under new scrutiny after a blistering opinion piece in The New York Times criticized her repeated claim that she was a “progressive prosecutor,” focused on changing a broken criminal justice system from within.

Harris addressed her law enforcement background in her book. She argued it was a “false choice” to decide between supporting the police and advocating for greater scrutiny of law enforcement.

https://apnews.com/1648ca2ef0fe4d9897212b8e91571f5a?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TheCid said:

 2020 reminds me a little bit of 1960.

Of course, the Republicans had an extremely strong candidate in Vice President Richard Nixon.

 I had just started paying attention to politics and I was amazed at all the people who had thrown their hats into the presidential race: on the Democratic side:

Stuart Symington

Hubert Humphrey

*Lyndon Johnson

* ( I can remember David Brinkley commenting that Johnson was Senate Majority Leader and couldn't get out to participate in the primaries; so that put him a little bit behind Kennedy.)

John F Kennedy

 

I didn't know anything about any of these people but I started to follow the primaries and one by one Kennedy got rid of them.

The West Virginia primary was a big surprise to a lot of people.

And much to the Chagrin of my father, even Adlai Stevenson was talking about running again. My father said he was a two-time loser and shouldn't waste our time again.

 

But I don't think Kennedy had all that much trouble at the convention.

 

There are always a lot of hopefuls, but if a truly strong candidate is out there, she or he will come through to the Forefront.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TheCid said:

What scares you?    These policy positions or the fact that for a Dem to win their primary they will need to have these positions?   (maybe both). 

Only the latter scares me since most of these positions require an act of Congress and even if there are Dem majorities in both the House and Senate,    the Dem establishment wing of the party, lead by Pelosi,  isn't going to support most of them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

What scares you?    These policy positions or the fact that for a Dem to win their primary they will need to have these positions?   (maybe both). 

Only the latter scares me since most of these positions require an act of Congress and even if there are Dem majorities in both the House and Senate,    the Dem establishment wing of the party, lead by Pelosi,  isn't going to support most of them.

 

 

She does have a history helping to enrich the banks at the expense of the home owners.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/01/kamala-harris-tells-big-lie-2012-mortgage-settlement-good-deal-homeowners.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

What scares you?    These policy positions or the fact that for a Dem to win their primary they will need to have these positions?   (maybe both). 

Only the latter scares me since most of these positions require an act of Congress and even if there are Dem majorities in both the House and Senate,    the Dem establishment wing of the party, lead by Pelosi,  isn't going to support most of them.

 

 

The policy positions.  And if a Dem has to have these positions to win the nomination and then lose the election, maybe it is time they learned a lesson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Weigel (Washington Post) has an interesting article on How S.C. voters will shape the Dem primary for president, but he is wrong.

One aspect of S.C. primaries is that no independents vote in Dem primary and many Dems vote in GOP primary.  The reason is that all of the state-wide officials, probably 75% of county and legislative officials, both US senators and 6 of 7 US House members are going to come out of the GOP primary.  In the upper part of the state, less than 5% of Dems will win and only because of gerrymandering Blacks into districts.

So, reasonable Dems and independents vote for the least offensive GOPer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/paloma/the-trailer/2019/01/22/the-trailer-how-south-carolina-voters-are-shaping-the-democratic-primary/5c46609e1b326b29c3778c5b/?utm_term=.4f3e25bd1013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

David Weigel (Washington Post) has an interesting article on How S.C. voters will shape the Dem primary for president, but he is wrong.

One aspect of S.C. primaries is that no independents vote in Dem primary and many Dems vote in GOP primary.  The reason is that all of the state-wide officials, probably 75% of county and legislative officials, both US senators and 6 of 7 US House members are going to come out of the GOP primary.  In the upper part of the state, less than 5% of Dems will win and only because of gerrymandering Blacks into districts.

So, reasonable Dems and independents vote for the least offensive GOPer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/paloma/the-trailer/2019/01/22/the-trailer-how-south-carolina-voters-are-shaping-the-democratic-primary/5c46609e1b326b29c3778c5b/?utm_term=.4f3e25bd1013

S.C.  primary is schedule days before Super-Tuesday so it might have some influence on what occurs that day.

Since CA is now part of Super-Tuesday,   on Wednesday the 'pack' of Dem candidates should be whittled down to 2 or 3.   

For the GOP I'm really hoping someone in the GOP has the guts to challenge Trump.    I would 'join' the GOP to vote in the CA primary IF that happened.

Also;  Today's L.A. Times had two letters to the editor about Harris (both by CA folks that voted for her); one was by a man that was disappointed Jr. Senator Harris decided to run for President.  He said he voted for her to last at least ONE full term.   He also said she was too inexperienced.

The other was clearly from a woman-of-color (e.g. she said it would be great to have a President that 'looked like her'),  that Harris was experienced politically (OK she has won 3 - 4 elections,  but lacks executive experience), and that Harris was guaranteed to beat Trump.    (didn't say nothing about winning Dem primary!).

Note that the Times says they select letters that represent the overall 'tone' of the letters they get.   Looks like what I have said about how Harris will run her campaign is 100% true.     Can one win the Dem primary with little support from white-males?    

 

 

    

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Bloomberg believes third party candidates will enable Trump to win re-election.  I agree with him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/29/we-cant-afford-run-it-now-bloomberg-lambastes-third-party-candidates-amid-schultz-book-tour/?utm_term=.058b66752a4d

Even worse, third party candidates could easily cause a Republican to win if Trump does not run for re-election.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Michael Bloomberg believes third party candidates will enable Trump to win re-election.  I agree with him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/29/we-cant-afford-run-it-now-bloomberg-lambastes-third-party-candidates-amid-schultz-book-tour/?utm_term=.058b66752a4d

Even worse, third party candidates could easily cause a Republican to win if Trump does not run for re-election.

Clearly a third party candidate increases the odds no one gets a majority in the EC.    When this occurs the House decides with each state getting ONE vote.   That clearly helps the GOP (who still 'own' more states (have more House members in A state) than the Dems).     

Note that it is my understanding EC voters can change who they vote for prior to the initial vote (but I'm unsure if this is true or how that works).     But if there is flexibility there,   I could see the Dems and Independent agreeing to join forces;    whoever has the least EC votes between the two,  prior to the initial vote,  pledges their EC votes to the other.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Clearly a third party candidate increases the odds no one gets a majority in the EC.    When this occurs the House decides with each state getting ONE vote.   That clearly helps the GOP (who still 'own' more states (have more House members in A state) than the Dems).     

Note that it is my understanding EC voters can change who they vote for prior to the initial vote (but I'm unsure if this is true or how that works).     But if there is flexibility there,   I could see the Dems and Independent agreeing to join forces;    whoever has the least EC votes between the two,  prior to the initial vote,  pledges their EC votes to the other.

 

The problem is that an independent may pull just enough votes away from the Dem candidate so that Trump gets 51% of the EC vote.

As for EC voters, I think almost all states have a clause that whoever is elected has to vote for whoever won the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if only the democrat party could convince enough stiffnecked progressives like the lulus who are running California into the ground to vote to abolish the EC which would change everything...

such an event would win over a lot of the country for the democrats. it would make one helluva issue for somebody.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us