Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[twa]

 

[The Evil Genius]

From that Politico story....

 

Quote

Some contenders would have a tough time winning their own states in the general election. 

 

Ha. Really? Harris would have a hard time winning California over Trump? Booker would have a hard time winning NJ over Trump? Warren would have a hard time winning Massachusetts over Trump? Even Gillibrand would smoke Trump in NY if they were head to head. These are all big states that are solid Dem states in most tossup elections. Trump is anything from making them in play.

[superozman]

On 4/7/2019 at 9:53 AM, ixcuincle said:

 

As someone who leans right, this board helped me review Andrew Yang's policy proposals and thought process, he's the first democrat candidate I could get behind.  He seems to have answers and a thought process similar to my thoughts/research/ideas.  

 

Does anyone here thinks if he does strong in democratic debates he would have a chance, or because he's not one of the "notable democrats" that he has no chance?

[The Evil Genius]

I'd say he has no chance.

 

As an aside, I'd also hate to see the Dems follow the stupidity of the GOP by nominating someone who doesn't understand politics.

[twa]

42 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

From that Politico story....

 

 

Ha. Really? Harris would have a hard time winning California over Trump? Booker would have a hard time winning NJ over Trump? Warren would have a hard time winning Massachusetts over Trump? Even Gillibrand would smoke Trump in NY if they were head to head. These are all big states that are solid Dem states in most tossup elections. Trump is anything from making them in play.

 

Pretty sure they are attempting to illustrate the candidates weakness. 

 

Of the 4 you mention only Kamala has the support to compete, and even her I was surprised at the weak showing at home(she does have more national appeal to make up for it though)

[superozman]

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

As an aside, I'd also hate to see the Dems follow the stupidity of the GOP by nominating someone who doesn't understand politics.

 

We might disagree there.  From my research I think he's smart enough to know how to learn through this run.  Now even prior to 2016, I knew Donald would just bully his way through everything and not "learn politics".  

[PleaseBlitz]

32 minutes ago, superozman said:

 

We might disagree there.  From my research I think he's smart enough to know how to learn through this run.  Now even prior to 2016, I knew Donald would just bully his way through everything and not "learn politics".  

 

He's definitely smart enough.  But that's not enough and, even if that was the only consideration, he's not the smartest person in the field.  Yang is one of those people who, if they want to get into politics, that's great, but don't try to start as POTUS.  

[superozman]

6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

He's definitely smart enough.  But that's not enough and, even if that was the only consideration, he's not the smartest person in the field.  Yang is one of those people who, if they want to get into politics, that's great, but don't try to start as POTUS.  

 

Understand the logic.

Who do you consider the smartest person in the field?  I'm not setting you up in any way, I'm just curious as who I should look into more.

[PleaseBlitz]

3 minutes ago, superozman said:

 

Understand the logic.

Who do you consider the smartest person in the field?  I'm not setting you up in any way, I'm just curious as who I should look into more.

 

In terms of pure intelligence, I would say Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete stand well above the rest of the field.  Warren is a former Harvard professor (and Penn) who quite literally invented a significant government agency, and obviously her policy proposals go way beyond everybody else.  Mayor Pete is a Harvard grad and freaking Rhodes scholar.  

[visionary]

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

Yang seems like a Libertarian.

[The Evil Genius]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

In terms of pure intelligence, I would say Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete stand well above the rest of the field.  Warren is a former Harvard professor (and Penn) who quite literally invented a significant government agency, and obviously her policy proposals go way beyond everybody else.  Mayor Pete is a Harvard grad and freaking Rhodes scholar.  

 

Booker is no slouch either. Undergrad at Stanford, Masters at Oxford, Law degree from Yale.

 

But yeah... Warren is probably in a league of her own. That said, we are also in the anti-intellectual era that Carl Sagan predicted back in 1995. So populism wins.

 

 

[Dan T.]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

He's definitely smart enough.  But that's not enough and, even if that was the only consideration, he's not the smartest person in the field.  Yang is one of those people who, if they want to get into politics, that's great, but don't try to start as POTUS.  

 

2 hours ago, superozman said:

 

Understand the logic.

Who do you consider the smartest person in the field?  I'm not setting you up in any way, I'm just curious as who I should look into more.

 

Thanks for helping me remember this quote, so appropriate to our times, yet written in July 1920 by H.L. Mencken in the Baltimore Evening Sun:

 

“As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.

On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last,

and the White House will be occupied by a downright moron.”

[The Evil Genius]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

He's definitely smart enough.  But that's not enough and, even if that was the only consideration, he's not the smartest person in the field.  Yang is one of those people who, if they want to get into politics, that's great, but don't try to start as POTUS.  

 

Seems like Yang would be a good choice for the Labor Department. 

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Seems like Yang would be a good choice for the Labor Department. 

 

Sure, as a mid-level person. 

[The Evil Genius]

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Sure, as a mid-level person. 

 

Yeah I should have clarified. Didn't mean Secretary but as even Deputy or one of the heads of the various dozens of boards, offices, etc.

[superozman]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

In terms of pure intelligence, I would say Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete stand well above the rest of the field.  Warren is a former Harvard professor (and Penn) who quite literally invented a significant government agency, and obviously her policy proposals go way beyond everybody else.  Mayor Pete is a Harvard grad and freaking Rhodes scholar.  

 

Thanks!  I have done some research on Warren already, but nothing yet on Pete B.  I guess he's currently a mayor (Exhibit A there).  

 

[nonniey]

5 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

From that Politico story....

 

 

Ha. Really? Harris would have a hard time winning California over Trump? Booker would have a hard time winning NJ over Trump? Warren would have a hard time winning Massachusetts over Trump? Even Gillibrand would smoke Trump in NY if they were head to head. These are all big states that are solid Dem states in most tossup elections. Trump is anything from making them in play.

Well not sure (link wouldn't open) but I assume they were referring to the primaries.

4 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

I'd say he has no chance.

 

As an aside, I'd also hate to see the Dems follow the stupidity of the GOP by nominating someone who doesn't understand politics.

Well the GOP followed the most recent Dem example in this regard first. The problem of not understanding politics is you can't get things through Congress unless you have majorities in both houses.

[Cooked Crack]

5 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Well not sure (link wouldn't open) but I assume they were referring to the primaries.

The quote literally says general election. The only folks who would lose their own state is those who are in states Trump won. Beto is the only current top-tier candidate that would happen to.

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

The quote literally says general election. The only folks who would lose their own state is those who are in states Trump won. Beto is the only current top-tier candidate that would happen to.

 

Buttigeg won't win Indiana.  I guess he isn't being considered top-tier yet tho, although I'd argue that his $7 million fundraising haul alone should change some minds on his "tier."

[The Evil Genius]

31 minutes ago, nonniey said:

 

Well the GOP followed the most recent Dem example in this regard first. The problem of not understanding politics is you can't get things through Congress unless you have majorities in both houses.

 

What recent Dem example? Last I checked the Dems have nominated politicians for President ad nauseum for awhile now. Am I missing someone? 

 

Last 7 Democrat nominations for President. Which is those had no experience in politics?

 

2016 - US Senator (and former Sec of State)

 

2012 - sitting POTUS

 

2008 - US Senator

 

2004 - US Senator (and former Lt. Governor)

 

2000 - Current VP (and former State Senator)

 

1996 - sitting POTUS

 

1992 - Governor

 

 

Shall I keep going?

 

Edit...1988 - Governor

 

1984 - former VP

 

1980 - sitting POTUS

 

1976 - Governor

 

1972 - US Senator

 

Really want me to keep going?

 

[nonniey]

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

What recent Dem example? Last I checked the Dems have nominated politicians for President ad nauseum for awhile now. Am I missing someone? 

 

Last 7 Democrat nominations for President. Which is those had no experience in politics?

 

2016 - US Senator (and former Sec of State)

 

2012 - sitting POTUS

 

2008 - US Senator

 

2004 - US Senator (and former Lt. Governor)

 

2000 - Current VP (and former State Senator)

 

1996 - sitting POTUS

 

1992 - Governor

 

 

Shall I keep going?

 

Edit...1988 - Governor

 

1984 - former VP

 

1980 - sitting POTUS

 

1976 - Governor

 

1972 - US Senator

 

Really want me to keep going?

 

So you are contending being a politician means you understand politics???  So Trump understands politics now ( it has been 2 years after all)?????🤣 

 

Most recent in 2016 would have been Obama - Obama was weak when it came to the political game once in office - really no disputing that (Not as weak as Trump though - heck Trump can't even get his own party to support him on many issues).

[mistertim]

21 minutes ago, nonniey said:

So you are contending being a politician means you understand politics???  So Trump understands politics now ( it has been 2 years after all)?🤣

 

I think most of us can agree that Trump is in a league of his own when it comes to not understanding things and the inability or unwillingness to learn.

[The Evil Genius]

29 minutes ago, nonniey said:

So you are contending being a politician means you understand politics???  So Trump understands politics now ( it has been 2 years after all)?????🤣 

 

Most recent in 2016 would have been Obama - Obama was weak when it came to the political game once in office - really no disputing that (Not as weak as Trump though - heck Trump can't even get his own party to support him on many issues).

 

Please. Obama had been a State and US Senator for 11 years before he took the reins of POTUS. 

 

It's not even comparable to Trump. Or even what you claimed and or pretended to claim.

 

And yes, serving in office at the State and/or Federal level gives you insider knowledge of the political world. Your refusal to acknowledge that is silly.

[Captain Wiggles]

I mean it's not like one party is running and appointing tv personalities and ex football coaches for political offices. 🤔