Ten oz

U.S. Democratic Primary

Recommended Posts

Marianne Williamson, Oprah’s spiritual advisor, also announced last week.

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/30/18203811/marianne-williamson-president-candidate

Quote

she is positioning her bid for the presidency as a moral imperative, using the language of spirituality that is woven throughout her work. “It’s going to be a co-creative effort, an effort of love, a gift of love, to our country and hopefully to our world,” she said in the videofor her exploratory committee. 

Nonetheless, while Williamson’s congressional campaign was largely dismissed in 2014 — “she’s not a credible candidate,” Eric Bauman, the LA County Democratic Party chair, sniffed in the LA Weekly piece — the political landscape has irrevocably changed since, and it’s clear that she and her followers are taking her presidential run seriously, even if many other Democrats may not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After some initial fuatration I am warming to Cory Booker. His tone has been uplifting and sends a message that intentions and performance matter in addition to outcomes. He is drawing connections between who we are and where we are going in a way other candidates aren't.

I have also seen some press about him being a vegan and I think there is some potential there to spark worthwhile discussion about the nation's diet. Especially if Booker can frame that discuss around health and the environment. 

*I am not implying veganism is the healthiest of all diets.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I am warming to Cory Booker.

I think he’d be the odds-on favorite if we had a ranked choice system. He doesn’t seem to be many people first choice, but he easily owns the number two slot for a huge group. 

Its moot since we don’t (and other threads exist to explore ways to improve our voting approach). 

I recently heard Booker described as the “Love-forward candidate” and it made me laugh, despite the fact that we sort of need that right now to heal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, iNow said:

recently heard Booker described as the “Love-forward candidate” and it made me laugh, despite the fact that we sort of need that right now to heal. 

I don't think we can heal. Seriously, Obama gave the country 8 scandal free years. Obama was cleaner than Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and etc. I am sure you have seen the charts showing the lack of officials indicated under Obama vs others. By the end of his 2 terms people were highly divided and anger. It seems a large portion of the public wants fire and drama in their polics. Obama's pragmatism and honesty disgusted millions.They hate him for not be the racist Kenyan they hoped for. Maybe I am bias but I think if people can find a way to be hate Obama they'll hate anyone. A person has get up early, skip lunch, work during during dinner, and go to be late 7 days a week to get enough hours in to find ways to dislike Obama....and millions made the time. 

I do like Booker's approach though. It is something a lot of people need to hear even if some will ignore it. 

Share this post


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

I don't think we can heal. Seriously, Obama gave the country 8 scandal free years. Obama was cleaner than Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and etc. I am sure you have seen the charts showing the lack of officials indicated under Obama vs others. By the end of his 2 terms people were highly divided and anger. It seems a large portion of the public wants fire and drama in their polics. Obama's pragmatism and honesty disgusted millions.They hate him for not be the racist Kenyan they hoped for. Maybe I am bias but I think if people can find a way to be hate Obama they'll hate anyone. A person has get up early, skip lunch, work during during dinner, and go to be late 7 days a week to get enough hours in to find ways to dislike Obama....and millions made the time. 

I do like Booker's approach though. It is something a lot of people need to hear even if some will ignore it. 

There are folks who were disappointed that he ran on a seemingly (but overall muted) progressive platform of hope and change but in the end was very moderate. On the other side the demonization was feasible due to a strong racist base on the far right. There was just so much crazy around that some of the otherwise ridiculous parts somehow became reasonably (such as characterizing his policies has extreme far left). 

However, his approval ratings at the end were fairly high, all things considered. The problem with being moderate is that the loudest factions on either side have plenty of ammunition to lob at him. I do not think that there were issues because he was scandal free, rather, it does not matter if you are not.

Share this post


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

There are folks who were disappointed that he ran on a seemingly (but overall muted) progressive platform of hope and change but in the end was very moderate. On the other side the demonization was feasible due to a strong racist base on the far right. There was just so much crazy around that some of the otherwise ridiculous parts somehow became reasonably (such as characterizing his policies has extreme far left). 

Right, calling Obama far left shifts the scale so much it makes McConnell makes a centrist. 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

However, his approval ratings at the end were fairly high, all things considered.

Lower than Bill Clinton's which is crazy when one considered Clinton bold faced lied to the public and was impeached by the House. 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

The problem with being moderate is that the loudest factions on either side have plenty of ammunition to lob at him. I do not think that there were issues because he was scandal free, rather, it does not matter if you are not.

I think on the right there is a faction who respect the sport aspect of politics. Like how fighters huge at the end of a boxing match regardless of how much trash talking there was before hand. Bill Clinton was dirtier and more agrressive opponent but that faction respected him for it. They related to the lies, cover ups, denials, and etc. They didn't support Clinton but enjoyed the gamesmanship. They felt like Clinton's peers. Obama offered no gamesmanship. He took the job serious and was clean. Rather than a tough back and forth competition where everyone gets in some licks Obama totally outclassed his opposition. It was embarrassing for them.

The Benghazi stuff during the 12' election was a good example. Factions on the right stirred up fake outrage over Obama's response and isn't he hadn't labelled it terrorism. When he publicly dismissed it during the debate and the media corrected the record many on the right were embarrassed and fustrated by it. Obama didn't react to their troll and the media ignored them. It bruised their egos. Sadder than yelling fire to get attention is doing so and then being laughed at. The sting of that left a strong emotional scar. To this day I know conservatives who still become visibily shaken when Benghazi comes up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

Lower than Bill Clinton's which is crazy when one considered Clinton bold faced lied to the public and was impeached by the House. 

Bill Clinton had a weird trajectory. Started off with middling approval ratings had a similar rise as Reagan, but remained relatively high. There are likely many factors at play here, but one is that probably a majority considered the whole lead-up to the impeachment process as a private affair (heh). Nowadays, it would face a whole different level of backlash, in my opinion. However, I do think that the rise of partisanship, as part of Gingrich's strategy as well of the increase of the weird right, including the tea party faction, it would not have mattered whether it was Obama or any other democrat to face similar issues. The race aspect in my mind played a bigger role in the extreme crazy aspects. though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read that 'good old' J Biden has the top approval/favorability ratings of the field of potential candidates.
In a lot of ways, he reminds me of B Sanders: not so much his political stance, but his 'ease' with people.
What do you more knowledgeable guys think. Would it be a mistake ?
( and why ? )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MigL said:

I have read that 'good old' J Biden has the top approval/favorability ratings of the field of potential candidates.
In a lot of ways, he reminds me of B Sanders: not so much his political stance, but his 'ease' with people.
What do you more knowledgeable guys think. Would it be a mistake ?
( and why ? )

Political environments change over time. Populations change as well. Social media has changed the way people consume information, automation has changed manufacturing, education has changed opportunity and competitiveness in the workplace, the U.S. is more Diverse, and etc, etc ,etc. We live in a different world than when Biden came up through the ranks. Biden has had his time. I think his time has past.

His treatment of Anita Hill for example while applauded for it's faux bipartisanship at the time was a disgustly sexist display. He has applogized but it is just the tip of the iceberg. Biden also supported steeper punishments for crack cocaine vs cociane which was a racist policy the disproportionately hurt poor and minority communities. Biden has apologized for that too. There are too many things for Biden to apologise for, too much history, and too many other quality candidates I hope Biden does run. I certainly won't be voting for him in the Democratic Primary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least he has seen the error of his previous ways, and apologized for them.
People are allowed to be educated, and not remain ignorant.

Others ( although I may like B Clinton ) have never apologized for their sexist treatment of young interns, or lying under oath while POTUS.
And his wife defending him, and blaming the young intern.
Yet you saw no problem voting for her.
( or was it simply because the alternative was, and is, so bad )

Why different standards for J Biden ?
( you have other reasons ? )

Share this post


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

I have read that 'good old' J Biden has the top approval/favorability ratings of the field of potential candidates.

He's a name people recognize, even those who don't follow news or politics. He's been a senator forever and a vice president, too. People tend to say they like what they recognize, so that's where Biden's favorability comes from, IMO. He's simply better known to the average Joe than the other candidates.

Share this post


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

Others ( although I may like B Clinton ) have never apologized for their sexist treatment of young interns, or lying under oath while POTUS.
And his wife defending him, and blaming the young intern.
Yet you saw no problem voting for her.
( or was it simply because the alternative was, and is, so bad )

Why different standards for J Biden ?
( you have other reasons ? )

Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton didn't have an affair with an intern. 

Being the person who does a bad thing and being the person who forgives a bad thing aren't equal. My wife forgives my stupidity all the time. She's a saint! :D My criticisms of Biden weren't that he forgave someone who did the things I listened. Joe Biden was the person who did those things. 

When Obama ran in 2008 he wasn't for marriage equality. He was pro civil union. He publicly stated many times marriage per his faith was between a man and a woman. That was just 10yrs ago and today that position would be untenable for a national Democratic candidate. Untenable even for many Republicans. Likewise with the ACA (Obamacare). Obama pushed the ACA because universal coverage was too big a leap, too partisan, and unpopular. Today medicare for all or some other form of universal coverage is a bipartisan talking point pitched by politicians all over the spectrum.

The political environment which had stayed relatively the same for 30yrs (Reagan - Clinton- Bush jr) has changed  rapidly over the last 6yrs or so. Not merely on the left but on the right as well. Paul Ryan, John Boehner, John McCain, Jeff Sessions, and etc people who helped define the Republican party over the last couple decades are all gone now. On the left Pelosi had to fight for speakership and this session (Congress sessions are 2yrs) will almost definitely be her last. There is a new political generation wait in the wings and holding them back any longer would be mistake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Play the slots, kid.
You have better chances of leaving with your shirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Play the slots, kid.
You have better chances of leaving with your shirt.

But...who wouldn't want to put a couple bucks on Sarah Huckabee Sanders with a  250 to 1 payoff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, MigL said:

Play the slots, kid.
You have better chances of leaving with your shirt.

Nah, best odds of leaving with my shirt are my dry cleaning tickets ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 5:48 PM, iNow said:

I pay pretty close attention to this stuff and I’ve gotta say, he was decidedly NOT on my radar. 

Pete Buttigieg was on Colbert . It it is the first I have seen of him and I was actually impressed. I specifically thought his answer about his age (37yrs old) was very compelling. He also did a good job contrasting his experience against that of Trump and Pence . 

It is a short interview and lacked policy details. Colbert was rather cold towards him for some reason. Buttigieg does have a book out which I might check out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

It it is the first I have seen of him and I was actually impressed.

He’s been everywhere this week under the guise of a book tour. NewsHour last night, lots of podcasts, and related shows. Agree he’s an impressive guy.

I’ll be keeping an eye on him, and only bad thing I’ve seen thus far actually applies to all candidates... he’s really obviously ambitiously pushing and trying to get attain power (ran for head of DNC previously, now prez). Again though, this applies to anyone running so isn’t terribly fair of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders has announced he is running for the Democratic Nomination. 

I view this as Sanders attempting to eat his cake and have it too. Sanders is not a Democrat yet insists on running for the Democratic nomination. I rather see Sanders join Schultz and flirt with an independent bid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

Bernie Sanders has announced he is running for the Democratic Nomination. 

I view this as Sanders attempting to eat his cake and have it too. Sanders is not a Democrat yet insists on running for the Democratic nomination. I rather see Sanders join Schultz and flirt with an independent bid. 

Unlike Shultz, Sanders has a shot at winning the Democrat ticket. Also if he ran as an independent would he not draw votes more from the Democrats than Schultz would?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Unlike Shultz, Sanders has a shot at winning the Democrat ticket. 

I think Sanders will see some defections from his last run, owing to how he screwed over the party by not withdrawing when it was clear Clinton would win the nomination, and from former supporters who can see he's not a team player, and only uses the democratic party when it suits him.

If he's not a the dem nominee, he likely won't be able to raise funds as easily.  He also won't be running against one opponent, and has far less to distinguish himself from the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Unlike Shultz, Sanders has a shot at winning the Democrat ticket. Also if he ran as an independent would he not draw votes more from the Democrats than Schultz would?

I don't think Sanders has a shot at all. In 2016 it was a 2 person race. Clinton (no candidate) was ever going to get 100% of the primary vote. Sanders had a sizable built in audience. Additionally Republicans and Russian trolls worked around the clock to bolster Sanders in an attempt t undermine Clinton. Those two factors will not work out in Sanders favor in 2020. Sanders might finish respectfully in a few States but I doubt he actually wins a single one. 

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