2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Stacyhs]

They like that he's a loudmouthed bully, from what I've seen. When I've talked to Trump supporters, it seems like the biggest reason they like Trump is that they can relate to what he represents to them: somewhat of an aspirational figure (he likes to pretend he's a self-made man) who constantly acts like he's defending himself. For people who regularly get crapped on in life, someone with a persecution complex that complains about it constantly can apparently be surprisingly relatable.

In other words, it's not really about who Trump actually is, it's about what they project onto him.

I was being sarcastic when I asked what Trumpers find relatable about Trump. I know they like his racism, his bigotry, his bullying and name calling that they see as 'sticking it to the libtards', etc. They relate to all the things I consider abhorrent.

ETA: "In other words, it's not really about who Trump actually is, it's about what they project onto him."

Which does not say much for them, imo, if that's what they want/need to see.

 

[Childlike Empress]

All this talk of whether the average American would find Buttigieg relatable begs the question: does the average American find Trump relatable? The average American certainly doesn't relate to a man (and I use that term loosely) who was born into extensive wealth, has a penthouse on 5th Ave., owns several golf resorts and a private jet. So what do they find relatable about Trump?

The average American has seen through the fake nature of the current political system and strongly enough preferred a complete wildcard like Trump, who is not a politician and might finally break it, over a complete establishment figure like Killary. This disgust has only gotten worse since the last election, which is why other establishment clowns will lose to the Orange one again.

There's a good discussion in the Rogan show with Tulsi about how she technically is the perfect candidate to beat Trump, with all the special skills apparently required (promises hope and change and even peace, has proven her loyalty as a warrior, is a woman, of colour, even slightly under seventy) and yet the "resistance" propaganda machine has her demonized and/or kept unknown to the average American. And why that is.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Ok, Stacy, I see my attempt to answer your question at face value was in vain as you were just asking for what you already knew.

Folks, it takes two to tango and your utter hatred against your fellow American "trumptrash" is a perfect mirror of what you ascribe to them. Remember divide and conquer, as old as power politics, and understand that you are played. Try to see the bigger picture and stop consuming the corporate propaganda that makes your brain mold every day and successfully destroys your empathy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

All this talk of whether the average American would find Buttigieg relatable begs the question: does the average American find Trump relatable? The average American certainly doesn't relate to a man (and I use that term loosely) who was born into extensive wealth, has a penthouse on 5th Ave., owns several golf resorts and a private jet. So what do they find relatable about Trump?

No, but "relatable" isn't the factor for much of the meatspace world that is is for much of the internet, or is at least conceptualized differently. I'd wager very people actually can "relate" to any major mainstream political candidate.

Do they find Trump "relatable" in statistically meaningful numbers (edge cases notwithstanding) in any usage of the term to mean "feels he understand me?" Probably not. But that's how you pick a drinking buddy or new guy for the bowling team. I like to think, or at least hope, that most of us aren't picking the leader of the free world on the "Yeah... that guy. I see myself in him." level.

Get away from the hardcore political fandoms (otherwise known as "Most of America") and someone being "For the people" means a lot more then being "Off the people."

And as always this is not an invitation for a 3 paragraph rant from anyone as to why Trump is bad. I'm aware. But I can be aware Trump is bad while being aware that other people don't agree.

Being too good to understand why Trump appeals people while not help us beat him. Pretending it's impossible that anyone really does is no better.

 

[Stacyhs]

No, but "relatable" isn't the factor for much of the meatspace world that is is for much of the internet, or is at least conceptualized differently. I'd wager very people actually can "relate" to any major mainstream political candidate.

Do they find Trump "relatable" in statistically meaningful numbers (edge cases notwithstanding) in any usage of the term to mean "feels he understand me?" Probably not. But that's how you pick a drinking buddy or new guy for the bowling team. I like to think, or at least hope, that most of us aren't picking the leader of the free world on the "Yeah... that guy. I see myself in him." level.

Get away from the hardcore political fandoms (otherwise known as "Most of America") and someone being "For the people" means a lot more then being "Off the people."

And as always this is not an invitation for a 3 paragraph rant from anyone as to why Trump is bad. I'm aware. But I can be aware Trump is bad while being aware that other people don't agree.

Being too good to understand why Trump appeals people while not help us beat him. Pretending it's impossible that anyone really does is no better.

Is that what you think I'm doing?

 

[acbytesla]

That's fine. Like I said, it just seems like we have completely different perspectives. But again, I'll point out that it seems contradictory you're talking about Pete being relatable for accomplishing a bunch of things most people wouldn't even dream of. At best, you've presented him as an aspirational or admirable figure, which I'll grant. But relatable? Absolutely not, based on my experiences. Those are distinct concepts.


That's something I'll agree with. It's why I'm a big supporter of progressive policies, and why I'd rather see someone else be the nominee than Pete. It's clear you don't see things the way I do.

I did. I wanted to be a politician almost from day one. Mayor Pete accomplished what I had hoped to, but didn't. I admire the hell out of what he's done. Now does that mean he's my choice? Not really. But he's been by far the most effective Democratic candidate running. I like some of Warren's policy proposals but she's gotten lost in the weeds. She's the ultimate wonk but hasn't been that effective at selling it all. I'm hoping she can turn it around. I also think the world of Cory Booker

Bernie is never going to work. It's not just that he's labeled himself a socialist, it's that he's 80 years old and sounds like Larry David. Joe Biden is relatable except he comes off ancient as well. Biden seems like he comes from another era.

I'd love it if Warren won it all.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I did. I wanted to be a politician almost from day one. Mayor Pete accomplished what I had hoped to, but didn't. I admire the hell out of what he's done. Now does that mean he's my choice? Not really. But he's been by far the most effective Democratic candidate running. I like some of Warren's policy proposals but she's gotten lost in the weeds. She's the ultimate wonk but hasn't been that effective at selling it all. I'm hoping she can turn it around. I also think the world of Cory Booker

Bernie is never going to work. It's not just that he's labeled himself a socialist, it's that he's 80 years old and sounds like Larry David. Joe Biden is relatable except he comes off ancient as well. Biden seems like he comes from another era.

I'd love it if Warren won it all.

My objection to the concept of Warren is that her goal seems to be Super Senator. She is interested in the president as a vehicle to accomplish legislative goals. But the presidency is an executive position.

For example, I don't like the FBI. If I was a legislator, I would try and enact a lot of restrictions that are regarded as liberal. But if I were president, I become the FBI boss. Things that make sense as a legislator would make me a terrible FBI boss.

 

[acbytesla]

My objection to the concept of Warren is that her goal seems to be Super Senator. She is interested in the president as a vehicle to accomplish legislative goals. But the presidency is an executive position.

For example, I don't like the FBI. If I was a legislator, I would try and enact a lot of restrictions that are regarded as liberal. But if I were president, I become the FBI boss. Things that make sense as a legislator would make me a terrible FBI boss.

I don't see how you get that. The most effective President in my lifetime was probably LBJ and it's because he knew how it works in the Senate having been a Congressman and Senator Majority leader.

I have no idea how good she'll be as the chief executive but I think I can fairly say that about everyone running.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't see how you get that. The most effective President in my lifetime was probably LBJ and it's because he knew how it works in the Senate having been a Congressman and Senator Majority leader.

I have no idea how good she'll be as the chief executive but I think I can fairly say that about everyone running.

And he would be low on my list for his management of the Vietnam war....an actual executive responsibility.

If she is not nominated, she can still propose the legislation that is the part of her reputation.

 

[Stacyhs]

My objection to the concept of Warren is that her goal seems to be Super Senator. She is interested in the president as a vehicle to accomplish legislative goals. But the presidency is an executive position.

For example, I don't like the FBI. If I was a legislator, I would try and enact a lot of restrictions that are regarded as liberal. But if I were president, I become the FBI boss. Things that make sense as a legislator would make me a terrible FBI boss.

I don't see how you get that. The most effective President in my lifetime was probably LBJ and it's because he knew how it works in the Senate having been a Congressman and Senator Majority leader.

I have no idea how good she'll be as the chief executive but I think I can fairly say that about everyone running.

I don't see how he gets that either. I think coming from the House or the Senate is actually an asset to a president.

 

[Stacyhs]

And he would be low on my list for his management of the Vietnam war....an actual executive responsibility.

If she is not nominated, she can still propose the legislation that is the part of her reputation.

And you think a president who had not served in Congress would have made better decisions about the war?

 

[BobTheCoward]

And you think a president who had not served in Congress would have made better decisions about the war?

That is an odd leap of logic. My objection was to how she was marketing herself. Read my post again.

My objection to the concept of Warren is that her goal seems to be Super Senator. She is interested in the president as a vehicle to accomplish legislative goals

I did not comment on her ability to fulfill an executive role.

 

[Stacyhs]

That is an odd leap of logic. My objection was to how she was marketing herself. Read my post again.



I did not comment on her ability to fulfill an executive role.

Read my post again. I was commenting on LBJ and the war, not Warren.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Read my post again. I was commenting on LBJ and the war, not Warren.

And I did not argue that any of my issues with LBJ have to do with his legislative background. I haven't suggested it about anybody.

 

[acbytesla]

And he would be low on my list for his management of the Vietnam war....an actual executive responsibility.

If she is not nominated, she can still propose the legislation that is the part of her reputation.

I'm not saying LBJ didn't make mistakes. He did. But I don't think "management" was the issue with Vietnam. It was being there at all. I would say LBJ was the best President in my lifetime if it wasn't for Vietnam. Of course that is huge caveat.

My point about Warren is we really don't know good she'll be as POTUS.

 

[Stacyhs]

Okey dokey.

Whoa....is that Alice I see ahead? Think I'll not follow her.....

 

[BobTheCoward]

My point about Warren is we really don't know good she'll be as POTUS.

That is a rather empty statement. We won't know how anyone will be. So we have to rely on a range of assessments. And a check against her is she isn't running with a lot of emphasis on what a president does.

Have you heard the phrase make yourself indispensable? Her emphasis on legislative proposals means anyone can just mine her proposals. She doesn't go away if she loses and stops making them. But the job is the hypothetical 3 AM phone call.

What is LBJs W.A.R.? Do you actually lose legislative accomplishment if he stayed in Congress and there was a generic democrat that year?

 

[acbytesla]

That is a rather empty statement. We won't know how anyone will be. So we have to rely on a range of assessments. And a check against her is she isn't running with a lot of emphasis on what a president does.

Have you heard the phrase make yourself indispensable? Her emphasis on legislative proposals means anyone can just mine her proposals. She doesn't go away if she loses and stops making them. But the job is the hypothetical 3 AM phone call.

What is LBJs W.A.R.? Do you actually lose legislative accomplishment if he stayed in Congress and there was a generic democrat that year?

Absolutely not. You should read about LBJ. He rose through the ranks to be Senate Majority. He was legendary as Majority leader and as President. He was a master at knowing how to twist arms and get what he wanted. He was a giant of a man who was both charming and coarse.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Absolutely not. You should read about LBJ. He rose through the ranks to be Senate Majority. He was legendary as Majority leader and as President. He was a master at knowing how to twist arms and get what he wanted. He was a giant of a man who was both charming and coarse.

That doesn't explain why he had to be president to have legislative accomplishments. If he was so good at twisting arms from the Senate, did he need to be president?

You are making the case for him not being president.

 

[acbytesla]

That doesn't explain why he had to be president to have legislative accomplishments. If he was so good at twisting arms from the Senate, did he need to be president?

You are making the case for him not being president.

And yet JFK got very little legislation passed. The combination of being President and understanding how to work Congress is what made LBJ pretty much unsurpassed at getting a lot done. I have my doubts that anyone else could have gotten passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed.