|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 10, 2019 14:44:42 GMT -5
Looking at the stuff in VA and the various grand visions of Dem possibilities for 2020 I would be in the they're both a mess and go third party and hoping for something better than how Ross Perot turned out. It would be enough of a job getting thi8ngs back to sanity and working order post-Trump without big plans for green energy to be imposed and universal health care monopolies (there was two on the housing thing in 'Freddie Mac' and 'Fannie May' and that was a bloody disaster). How about a sane party with fanatics vetted out who are about doing the jobs that need doing and no grand schemes or tossing out things people learned to very hard way were needed whether FDR, LBJ, Reagan or whoever they absolutely hate put them in originally? A party that looks for quality and tries to get it under their umbrella instead of whatever motivated fanatics come in the door and kiss ass until they get the chance they think they deserve?
Oh well, pipe dreams again as usual, but things are really out of order and a lot of fanatics promising paradise isn't likely to fix it if they ever are any different (the VA democrats showed themselves not to by one iota). Elizabeth Warren is a froot loop to me, great to have in a lower position to create a rough balance sometimes against corporate owned politicians but I wouldn't want to go from a genuine nutbar to a froot loop. Really? people believe in that after all the mess they think an outsider fanatic will be able to do a thing? Things would be as locked up under her and she'd probably quit in frustration at not being able to do anything, because the changes she wants to make are left of Cuba in some ways. it's just not practical and this would be the worst time for this kind of childish fantasy stuff. I'd be nervous enough to have Bernie or Biden as the choice, but there really is a strong element of fantasy to Warren that you would ignore at your own risk.
I don't see either party fixing themselves, Republican party is scorched earth at best, a partial skeleton left of anyone with real ability versus hot air and sheer extreme fascist tendencies to criminal actions being perfectly okay. The democrats are boarding the granola bus to go off a cliff it seems banking again on the let's make history and elect a _________ this time to show how superior or values are. The kumbayah thing they get painted with so let's really show that this is true? You need serious, capable and moderate the most badly and you get this froot loop vision stuff instead?
Now that I've peed on everyone's barbecue I'd like to know how painting Howard Schultz as radical can possibly work? But this is what they will be doing. I am taking a good look at the guy and not finding the problems we know are destroying one party and making the other a reactionary pie-in-the-sky joke.
I'll be a lot more busy the next while but hopefully have time to read, and at least will 'like' to show I've read and appreciated. Job one for everyone serious should be getting things stable and functional again and ensuring high standards and laws or rules are adhered to by those who intending to impose so much on others where the goal should be to impose the least. Government should be a can-do, positive and accessible thing for people, and not something against them that handicaps or starts and inflames fights among them. Real working, getting done what needs doing, not making up work, or wiping out someone else's work.
Best wishes as always.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 17:38:00 GMT -5
Wow. beccabear67 has become the voice of reason and balance here and an example for civil discourse for this thread. Kudos! Thank you. I agree with a lot of what you said in your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Warren is definitely not the answer. I fear we will have another terrible choice yet again in 2020. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 11, 2019 0:56:47 GMT -5
I don't know much about Warren - let's hear some more. Left of Sanders doesn't sound bad, but she was a Republican through the Reagan years? That doesn't sound good to me. What's the story there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Feb 11, 2019 9:37:31 GMT -5
Howard Schultz is a bad candidate, because businessmen are bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 11, 2019 10:42:10 GMT -5
Howard Schultz is a bad candidate, because businessmen are bad. Business men aren't inherently bad. But in my experience (and it's pretty extensive) being a businessman doesn't necessarily translate into being successful in political positions. In particular, deciding to start at the very top with no political administrative experience is a recipe for disaster. Governments are not businesses. And the mantra "Run government like a business" is nonsensical. The one plus that Schultz has is that he actually ran a large successful business, unlike the current Charlatan-in-Chief who ran the functional equivalent of a family business and failed miserably every time he tried to take it big. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 11, 2019 11:22:32 GMT -5
Howard Schultz is a bad candidate, because businessmen are bad. Business men aren't inherently bad. But in my experience (and it's pretty extensive) being a businessman doesn't necessarily translate into being successful in political positions. In particular, deciding to start at the very top with no political administrative experience is a recipe for disaster. Governments are not businesses. And the mantra "Run government like a business" is nonsensical. The one plus that Schultz has is that he actually ran a large successful business, unlike the current Charlatan-in-Chief who ran the functional equivalent of a family business and failed miserably every time he tried to take it big. I agree with you to an extent, but on the flip side, candidates with zero business experience tend to base their economic policies on theory they learned in college rather than having any real-world experience with managing people, finances, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 11, 2019 12:02:09 GMT -5
Howard Schultz is a bad candidate, because businessmen are bad. Business men aren't inherently bad. But in my experience (and it's pretty extensive) being a businessman doesn't necessarily translate into being successful in political positions. In particular, deciding to start at the very top with no political administrative experience is a recipe for disaster. Governments are not businesses. And the mantra "Run government like a business" is nonsensical. The one plus that Schultz has is that he actually ran a large successful business, unlike the current Charlatan-in-Chief who ran the functional equivalent of a family business and failed miserably every time he tried to take it big. I always say that one of the keys to understanding trump's behaviour is to remember that he's more a showman than a businessman, let alone politician, let far, far alone. Pretty much everything he does is done primarily with an eye to the effect it'll make on his audience - which always includes himself, of course, self-awareness not being part of his repertoire. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 12:05:41 GMT -5
I don't know much about Warren - let's hear some more. Left of Sanders doesn't sound bad, but she was a Republican through the Reagan years? That doesn't sound good to me. What's the story there? With respect... she would hurt Dems chances of winning. She won't fly with conservatives or moderate democrats. The Dems will only win with a moderate IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Feb 11, 2019 12:26:04 GMT -5
Howard Schultz is a bad candidate, because businessmen are bad. Business men aren't inherently bad. But in my experience (and it's pretty extensive) being a businessman doesn't necessarily translate into being successful in political positions. In particular, deciding to start at the very top with no political administrative experience is a recipe for disaster. Governments are not businesses. And the mantra "Run government like a business" is nonsensical. The one plus that Schultz has is that he actually ran a large successful business, unlike the current Charlatan-in-Chief who ran the functional equivalent of a family business and failed miserably every time he tried to take it big. I was being facetious with my comment if that wasn't clear.  I don't think Schultz is a bad candidate for either party, especially when compared to the current GOP crop or the more left wing Democrat mavericks. I'd be curious to see his actual platform and debate performance before developing an opinion on him though. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 11, 2019 12:59:15 GMT -5
Business men aren't inherently bad. But in my experience (and it's pretty extensive) being a businessman doesn't necessarily translate into being successful in political positions. In particular, deciding to start at the very top with no political administrative experience is a recipe for disaster. Governments are not businesses. And the mantra "Run government like a business" is nonsensical. The one plus that Schultz has is that he actually ran a large successful business, unlike the current Charlatan-in-Chief who ran the functional equivalent of a family business and failed miserably every time he tried to take it big. I was being facetious with my comment if that wasn't clear. I don't think Schultz is a bad candidate for either party, especially when compared to the current GOP crop or the more left wing Democrat mavericks. I'd be curious to see his actual platform and debate performance before developing an opinion on him though. I'll pass on bored dilettante billionaires as President. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 11, 2019 14:47:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Feb 11, 2019 14:51:47 GMT -5
I don't know much about Warren - let's hear some more. Left of Sanders doesn't sound bad, but she was a Republican through the Reagan years? That doesn't sound good to me. What's the story there? With respect... she would hurt Dems chances of winning. She won't fly with conservatives or moderate democrats. The Dems will only win with a moderate IMO. I disagree. I think chasing moderates doesn't work for Dems, with Clinton and Obama being their only wins in decades, and Obama advertised as less moderate than he ended up being. I think Democrats need to go left of where they have been (which is right of center compared to pretty much the rest of the developed world. I think there is still a transitional period, but the larger Xers and Millenial blocs are finally on the verge of showing up en masse as the Boomers are going to inevitably start winding down. Next 10-20 years. I also think moderate is, at best, safe and treading water and will leave us behind on the global stage. I think for the good of our national overall we need to pursue at least a more moderate balance from a global perspective, where things like single payer healthcare actually both reduce costs and improve healthcare. And actually providing parental leave for new parents and not treating people like machines. At worst, I think moderate and meeting in the middle is dangerous, particularly when the current Dems are largely inept and impotent, while the current Republicans in power are demonstrably despicable. Being polite and civil while someone tramples on you is hardly a positive. I don't think Warren is the right answer because she is radically left (she isn't); it's because she has the charisma of a napkin. It's a shame that it matters as much as it does, but personality is big. I think she would be a solid VP to someone else, or if she had a suitably popular VP *maybe*. Also Beccabear, I think your notion the Dems all the Dems have to offer is a one-trick token minority to win is hugely inaccurate. None of the current contenders have really won me over yet. I like Harris on paper as she is a tough-as-nails, no-nonsense former prosecutor and will not be intimidated, but I am not sure she has the policy or personality. Warren is as exciting as a noodle. I don't know that Sanders could pull it off again. Biden is waffling but dude's almost 80. I don't see the others being viable, but who knows. Obama was a nobody when he started, and look how that worked out. Oh, and Schultz is another arrogant self-impressed billionaire who will likey help get Trump reelected. Thanks but no thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 11, 2019 16:56:18 GMT -5
With respect... she would hurt Dems chances of winning. She won't fly with conservatives or moderate democrats. The Dems will only win with a moderate IMO. I disagree. I think chasing moderates doesn't work for Dems, with Clinton and Obama being their only wins in decades, and Obama advertised as less moderate than he ended up being. I think Democrats need to go left of where they have been (which is right of center compared to pretty much the rest of the developed world. I think there is still a transitional period, but the larger Xers and Millenial blocs are finally on the verge of showing up en masse as the Boomers are going to inevitably start winding down. Next 10-20 years. I also think moderate is, at best, safe and treading water and will leave us behind on the global stage. I think for the good of our national overall we need to pursue at least a more moderate balance from a global perspective, where things like single payer healthcare actually both reduce costs and improve healthcare. And actually providing parental leave for new parents and not treating people like machines. At worst, I think moderate and meeting in the middle is dangerous, particularly when the current Dems are largely inept and impotent, while the current Republicans in power are demonstrably despicable. Being polite and civil while someone tramples on you is hardly a positive. I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this. The Democrats absolutely need to court moderates in order to win in 2020 and beyond. The political breakdown in the US according to a October 2017 Gallup Poll is 31% Democrat, 24% Republican and 42% Independent (which only works out to 97%, so let's assume the other 3% couldn't care less about politics). On the Republican side, I would believe that more than 20% of them will vote for whomever the party runs for POTUS, whether or not the candidate is Lincoln, Bush II, or Trump, because they are aligned that winning is the only acceptable outcome. The Democrats, however, are more fragmented, because they have the Moderate wing and the Progressive wing. Assuming a 60%/40% M/P split, the Moderate wing is starting out with 18.5% and the Progressive wing at is starting out with about 12.5%, putting both of the behind the "Always Republican" bloc from the outset. Now looking at the 42% that considers itself Independent, even with an even 50%/50% split between the two parties, the Democrats are facing a 41% vs 39.5% deficit with a Moderate candidate and a 41% vs 33.5% deficit with a Progressive candidate. Because of the nature of the current POTUS, more Independent-identifying voters may swing Democrat in 2020, but of those who would normally lean Republican, there's going to be a group that is only willing to go so far left before that becomes completely unappealing to them. While they may vote for a Moderate Democrat candidate, the idea of voting for a Progressive Democrat candidate doesn't work for them, so their either vote Trump, vote third-party candidate, or don't vote, all three outcomes harming the Democrat candidate's chances. With that, if the Democrats want to win in 2020, they're going to have to find a candidate that the Moderates in their own party support, that enough of the Progressives in their own party support, and that is not so far left as to turn off the typically right-leaning Independent voters that will help in states like WI, MI, OH, and PA. Speaking as a registered Independent who lives in a "battleground" state and tends to lean a hair to the right of center but who isn't stuck on that side (and who has a spouse who is about the same), we won't vote for a Progressive Democrat candidate, no matter how bad Trump is, because we can't get behind their proposals and politics. We'll vote third party or we'll stay home, and the Dems will lose two votes in a state that they desperately need to win in order to retake the White House in 2020. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 17:16:14 GMT -5
impulse I have to agree with The Captain. I too live in PA. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh would vote for a far left candidate but the entire rest of the state is moderate or leans right. And they were the ones that voted for Trump no matter how distasteful it was. They just will not vote for a far left candidate. That base did not disappear. And they will fight to have their voice still be heard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Feb 11, 2019 17:48:20 GMT -5
The folks at FiveThirtyEight have this analysis of the Democratic nomination fight: the party has five basic constituencies, and the winner will be the one who can get the support of three of them. The five are: Party Loyalists, The Left, Millenials & Friends, African-Americans, and Hispanics & Asians (who tend to vote similarly in party primaries). On fivethirtyeight.com they've been systematically looking at the way each candidate and potential candidate appeals to each of the five groups.
On a completely different note, this went around Facebook over the weekend:
"A Simple Explanation of Democratic Socialism.
Sometimes it's much more efficient and cost-effective to pool our resources together and use them for our common good. For example, police, education, fire department, garbage collection, libraries and snow removal.
These are not nefarious attempts to control your life or redistribute your wealth. They are simply the most cost-effective way to provide these services to you, paid for by your tax dollars.
Most countries have found that access to health care is better when handled this way as well."
|
|
