• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Distracted1 said:
Then why bother campaigning? Is it simply, as I suggested above, "turning out the base"?
Click to expand...

To me campaigning is like advertising: everybody seems to feel it's necessary and lavishes tons of money and attention on it, but I never decide anything based on advertising. I find it annoying.

I'd prefer elections to be run by all the candidates posting their positions in a spreadsheet which each voter could then review to compare them. That's all I would need to decide.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I don't have a plan. I'm not a politician so I'm neither running for office nor coordinating a strategy for those who are. Like the vast majority of everybody I'm just a spectator.

Good God, I know some here take themselves awfully seriously but do try to remember we're all just random bozos talking online, we're not masterminding the schemes within the corridors of power!
Click to expand...
I resent that. I, for one, am a very specific bozo.
 
The electibility argument always struck me as a bit speculative. "please vote for this candidate in the primary, despite not really liking him very much, because other voters in the general will like him more than you do".

I'm not in the mind reading business when I vote. I can't know if some empty suit like Buttigieg will appeal to some MAGA chud in Ohio or not. I only know that Buttigieg strikes me, personally, as totally uninteresting.

In the the wake of the HRC failure, I am deeply skeptical of the appeal of technocratic centrists. It is becoming increasingly clear that they strike most everyone, left and right, as terribly unappealing.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The electibility argument always struck me as a bit speculative. "please vote for this candidate in the primary, despite not really liking him very much, because other voters in the general will like him more than you do".

I'm not in the mind reading business when I vote. I can't know if some empty suit like Buttigieg will appeal to some MAGA chud in Ohio or not. I only know that Buttigieg strikes me, personally, as totally uninteresting.

In the the wake of the HRC failure, I am deeply skeptical of the appeal of technocratic centrists. It is becoming increasingly clear that they strike most everyone, left and right, as terribly unappealing.
Click to expand...

Given how rare it is for one party to hold the White House for three consecutive terms, Clinton winning the popular vote was an outstanding achievement.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Given how rare it is for one party to hold the White House for three consecutive terms, Clinton winning the popular vote was an outstanding achievement.
Click to expand...

It's rare, sure, but the conditions were favorable for a continued D hold of the executive. Obama was very popular throughout his term and HRC benefited as his successor.

Trump was a uniquely weak candidate and HRC still lost.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Good God, I know some here take themselves awfully seriously but do try to remember we're all just random bozos talking online, we're not masterminding the schemes within the corridors of power!
Click to expand...

Here's a little secret: most of the politicians are random bozos and not masterminds. They seem to be doing not too bad, so our resident bozo ideas might not be that crazy.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It's rare, sure, but the conditions were favorable for a continued D hold of the executive. Obama was very popular throughout his term and HRC benefited as his successor.

Trump was a uniquely weak candidate and HRC still lost.
Click to expand...
That fails to consider something. HRC was a particularly weak candidate as well.
I was delighted when Trump got the Republican nod, because I thought he was the only one of the field of Republican nominees that could possibly lose to HRC.

For me that election cemented my notion that "electability" needs to be considered as the foremost quality of any potential candidate.
 
Well then we're at an impasse.

Voters aren't stupi... voters are a specific kind of stupid.

The problem is "electability" isn't a thing. What we're talking is a vague constantly moving point somewhere in an unspoken Frankenstein mish-mash of likability, "honesty" (not real honesty but that "Please dear God just don't talk like everything you're saying has been focus grouped to death and back" thing), and conflicting self interests.

We groom politicians specifically for "electability" and the voters are going to see through that, even if they aren't aware of it.

But as said the best candidate with the bestest ideas and the most noblest reasons ever who doesn't get elected is paradoxically the worst possible candidate.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Well then we're at an impasse.

Voters aren't stupi... voters are a specific kind of stupid.

The problem is "electability" isn't a thing. What we're talking is a vague constantly moving point somewhere in an unspoken Frankenstein mish-mash of likability, "honesty" (not real honesty but that "Please dear God just don't talk like everything you're saying has been focus grouped to death and back" thing), and conflicting self interests.

We groom politicians specifically for "electability" and the voters are going to see through that, even if they aren't aware of it.

But as said the best candidate with the bestest ideas and the most noblest reasons ever who doesn't get elected is paradoxically the worst possible candidate.
Click to expand...
To a point.
Politicians are groomed to be electable over small geographical regions.

The Presidency is different, in that it is the only elected position that needs to secure votes in rural Wyoming, Hawaii, and Manhattan.

"Electability" acquires a different complexion than Politicians have been groomed for when taken to this wide of a stage. We err when we consider only our own regions'/demographics' tastes- then behave as if we are surprised that other regions have a decidedly unfavorable opinion of our favorite.

That we, as voters, know how the game is played is just another metric. Some candidates can be seen as a deliberate insult to our sensibilities because we all know how the game is played.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Ah, but you're overlooking one thing: the shrill, mindless crapulence of Republicans. No matter who the Democrat candidate is the right will declare them the second coming of Lenin. So since the Dem is going to get that treatment anyway, why not go ahead and make it a good one? Why bother trying to compromise when the other side is determined in advance to reject all compromise?
Click to expand...

There's also the question of what, exactly, we should do. Something that keeps getting glossed over is that Democrats and those who lean Democrat outnumber Republicans and those who lean Republican significantly... yet, it's always the Democrats who have to fear rousing Republican ire and getting more of them to vote? That's ingraining and broadcasting weakness into everything the party does. I say that Democrats should be leading and the Republicans should be the ones fearful of raising ire, quite frankly.
 
USA Today notes that it may be a three-person race in Iowa, but not the three we thought, as Pete Buttigieg elbows his way past Bernie into third place.

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg has apparently given Buttigieg some advice on campaign hires.

Earlier this year, Zuckerberg sent multiple emails to Mike Schmuhl, Buttigieg’s campaign manager, with names of individuals that he might consider hiring, campaign spokesman Chris Meagher confirmed. Priscilla Chan, Zuckerberg’s wife, also sent multiple emails to Schmuhl with staff recommendations. Ultimately, two of the people recommended were hired.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom