2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[BobTheCoward]

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.

I am unconvinced
ETA: I am also unconvinced by the opposite position.

But what matters is if Warren is making that case.

 

[newyorkguy]

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.

I agree. I remember watching an Obama interview on PBS and at some point they asked him about a proposal for a program. Had something to do with providing funding for...tuition for community colleges? Something fairly benign and non-partisan.

He smiled and said he agreed it was a good proposal but -- and he said something like, "We're a long way from getting it passed." Then Obama launched into an explanation, and you could see his policy wonk side, paraphrasing, "Under the existing Congressional mandate for this kind of program we have to do three things: First under Title XII of the Such-and-such Act we have to show that the program would be blah-blah-blah. Under the Omnibus Bill that was passed in the last session we have to show that yadda-yadda-yadda. And under Title XXXVII of the Federal Something Act we have to ensure that we have a finding that will dot-dot-dot."

Governing is complex. Many rules and regulations have been passed over the years to ensure that tax money is spent wisely. There's all kinds of restrictions and qualifications, as there should be. Heaven help someone who gets elected with little or no legislative experience. There's no greater example than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Essentially, it seems to me, he hasn't been able to do anything because he has no clue how government actually works.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I agree. I remember watching an Obama interview on PBS and at some point they asked him about a proposal for a program. Had something to do with providing funding for...tuition for community colleges? Something fairly benign and non-partisan.

He smiled and said he agreed it was a good proposal but -- and he said something like, "We're a long way from getting it passed." Then Obama launched into an explanation, and you could see his policy wonk side, paraphrasing, "Under the existing Congressional mandate for this kind of program we have to do three things: First under Title XII of the Such-and-such Act we have to show that the program would be blah-blah-blah. Under the Omnibus Bill that was passed in the last session we have to show that yadda-yadda-yadda. And under Title XXXVII of the Federal Something Act we have to ensure that we have a finding that will dot-dot-dot."

Governing is complex. Many rules and regulations have been passed over the years to ensure that tax money is spent wisely. There's all kinds of restrictions and qualifications, as there should be. Heaven help someone who gets elected with little or no legislative experience. There's no greater example than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Essentially, it seems to me, he hasn't been able to do anything because he has no clue how government actually works.

How government works is that there are 2 million federal employees who almost all are under the president. Managing that appears to be a bigger effort than legislation.

 

[Stacyhs]

Danger! Danger, Will Robinson! Rabbit hole looming and quickly approaching!

 

[newyorkguy]

 

[acbytesla]

Danger! Danger, Will Robinson! Rabbit hole looming and quickly approaching!

 

[Brainster]

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 am always kind of amused by this notion. Yes, LBJ got a lot of stuff passed. When he had a House Majority of almost 80 seats and a Senate Majority of 32 seats. And that was in 1963-1964, before he had his landslide victory. After that the Democrats had a 68-32 advantage in the Senate and 295-140 in the House. Wow, he got legislation passed with those kinds of majorities?

ETA: Let me say too, that although LBJ eventually flamed out on the Vietnam War, I have to say his efforts on the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were excellent. I don't remember which speech it came in but I do remember LBJ saying one time, "We shall overcome," and I was thrilled as a little kid.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I am always kind of amused by this notion. Yes, LBJ got a lot of stuff passed. When he had a House Majority of almost 80 seats and a Senate Majority of 32 seats. And that was in 1963-1964, before he had his landslide victory. After that the Democrats had a 68-32 advantage in the Senate and 295-140 in the House. Wow, he got legislation passed with those kinds of majorities?

ETA: Let me say too, that although LBJ eventually flamed out on the Vietnam War, I have to say his efforts on the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were excellent. I don't remember which speech it came in but I do remember LBJ saying one time, "We shall overcome," and I was thrilled as a little kid.

Again,could he have done that as Senate majority leader?

 

[acbytesla]

I am always kind of amused by this notion. Yes, LBJ got a lot of stuff passed. When he had a House Majority of almost 80 seats and a Senate Majority of 32 seats. And that was in 1963-1964, before he had his landslide victory. After that the Democrats had a 68-32 advantage in the Senate and 295-140 in the House. Wow, he got legislation passed with those kinds of majorities?

ETA: Let me say too, that although LBJ eventually flamed out on the Vietnam War, I have to say his efforts on the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were excellent. I don't remember which speech it came in but I do remember LBJ saying one time, "We shall overcome," and I was thrilled as a little kid.

But what you're not considering is that a substantial number of those Democrats were Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats. Hardly progressive and not receptive to civil rights. .

No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory,” he said, “than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill.” In February 1964, after a series of amendments by civil rights supporters, the House passed a much stronger bill than the one that Kennedy had proposed, and the measure was finally passed by the Senate in June, after an 83-day filibuster by Southern opponents.

LBJ successfully transformed Kennedy's stalled lesgislative agenda into a juggernaut. After being ignored and mocked by the Kennedy administration as VP, LBJ the piece that did not fit in Camelot as President took his knowledge of Congress and got more important legislation passed than anyone outside of FDR.

LBJ is still a dirty word in Republican circles and that has nothing to do with Vietnam. He's my man for what he did for minorities, the poor and the working class.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

What kind of tree, though?

Buttgieg's being gay is literally the only interesting and appealing thing about him. And even then he's not very interesting about it. He's a khaki-pants gay, totally assimilated to the heteronormative world. Yawn, bring a book. I bet he's never even been spanked in public by a leather daddy. Buttgieg's a safe, boring gay that appeals to straight people because he's as dull as they are.

Wow. “Literally the only...thing.”

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Wow. “Literally the only...thing.”

Plus a caricature of gay living that went past its sell-by date about 30 years ago.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Plus a caricature of gay living that went past its sell-by date about 30 years ago.

Awwwww. If I assimilate will I win your approval?

Eta: to elaborate, no, you don't get to decide whether my opinion of Buttgieg's queerness is valid or not. He's the one who decided to run for office and use his sexuality in his bid for the job. So I, and all the other gays, can absolutely judge him on what kind of a gay he is. And in my opinion he's an assimilationist. Which --again, my opinion-- is not a good trait.

 

[Venom]

Speaking of management, say what you want about Obama; he was a fabulous manager. Paid a lot of attention to detail.

We went from a great manager to one of the worst managers in the history of U.S. politics.

I look at the top four, five Dem front runners and the only person I think will have a tough time managing is Pete Buttigieg, just based on his history. But even he would be far beyond Trump in this category.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Speaking of management, say what you want about Obama; he was a fabulous manager. Paid a lot of attention to detail.

We went from a great manager to one of the worst managers in the history of U.S. politics. .

Hopefully it was a last gasp.

 

[Delvo]

Gay people can still say that kind of stuff about gay people, of course, just like black people can say whatever they want about black people and so on.

But matching or not matching gay stereotypes is not his problem. His problem is how he reacts to challenges. Make him think he has trouble getting black support, and he trots out some claims of black supporters that would be condescendingly irrelevant even if true but were also easily proven false. Give him a spot on stage with somebody else who goes up against him individually just once for a few minutes even fairly mildly, and he panics and blurts out useless futile reactions that he didn't think through before saying them because his brain froze.

He needs to get less worried about the fact that some people just won't like him no matter what he does and trying to get the ones who don't yet will lose him some who already did. And he needs to solidify his presentation and agenda (and the agenda needs to be something the populace wants). Going for "First Member Of This Demographic Group To Be President" doesn't cut it alone. Kennedy lived in a country where no Catholic had ever gotten there before and lots of people thought a Catholic would essentially take orders from the Vatican, but he had style and a pretty clear agenda that he pushed with gusto. Obama had been both a local activist and a Senator first, was much more disciplined and practiced at public speaking & debating, and had a campaign with a straightforward unmistakable theme (even if it was low on detail and he didn't follow through after getting elected). Hillary had an aimless mess of a campaign that leaned too hard on "because she has a vagina", but even she at least still had a résumé built up from years of her party giving her stuff to put on it, which wasn't enough anyway. Trying to make history just to make history doesn't work.

 

[Mumbles]

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.

The main other arguments were "He's a great businessman and government should be run like a business" - he's a terrible businessman and I'm entirely unconvinced that even good businessmen would make good presidents - and "He's for the little guy" - a ridiculous assertion given his thousands of examples of stiffing and ruining small business owners. The scumbag even failed to pay those three little girls he had sing on stage the one time.

 

[SezMe]

....I was taught that a good education was important and anything was possible.

And the people who ArchSas is talking about ones who weren't taught that. And I'd bet the those far outweigh those who got your type of values instilled in them.

 

[SezMe]

I expect nothing from your majesty personally, but I generally expect from readers of this thread to have an interest in the latest developments of the topic, and Tulsi being (again) on this vastly popular podcast at just the right time when she needs another poll or two to stay on the clownish "debate" track is news in itself, whether you have an attention span that can cope with that kind of format (like over 2 million people in the few days since it was published have at least tried themselves at) or more like something fitting the "debates" is irrelevant to the service character of my post.

Nominated for the longest run-on sentence of 2019.

 

[Mumbles]

Tonedeaf white guy born into money. Yeah, he's lightyears away from Trump.

Yeah, I'm not buying the "Mayor Pete is the polar opposite of Dolt 45" line, either. They both strike me as rather unconcerned with details, easily flustered, and like anyone running for president, rather egotistical - although Pete more than most.

Not that I buy the theory of people going for "polar opposite" presidents anyway - particularly since more people voted for Hillary Clinton than the current idiot in chief - but if I did, I'd see the natural as Harris or Klobuchar, particularly since both are actually career prosecutors, while Dolt 45's a career criminal. Even the people who voted Dolt 45 to "Pwn the libs" were voting against their profoundly incorrect perception of who Obama was. That is, they voted for revenge for the thin-skinned Kenyan Muslim who wanted to kill cops and hated "whitey". Hell, a lot of them even bought the asinine "Whitey Tape" rumor about Michelle.

 

[SezMe]

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?

Easy. He hates the libtards just like they do. They don't have the power to do anything about it but Dump does and they love him for doing so.

ETA: I see it was a rhetorical question. Just ignore this.