Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

88Comrade2000

By 88Comrade2000
in The Tailgate

TK
Message added by TK,

 

Recommended Posts

Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Every time I've seen Mayor Pete, (which, I confess, isn't that often.  I'm a very low information voter), he's struck me as young, and positive.  (Often calling for moderation in debate and resisting attempts to get him to go negative.)  

 

I don't think he's remotely qualified to be President.  But I think he might bring a youthful, positive, vibe to a campaign as Veep.  At least that's my optimism talking.  (I am, after all, a Redskins fan.)  (And the impression I get is that Warren gives off the "angry woman with a mission" vibe, which might not be so positive.)  

 

Now, would it help?  Not at all sure.  Other than Sarah Palin, I can't remember ever thinking that a Veep choice really affected the votes for a ticket.  Maybe it makes a difference on the R side, where we seem to hve a pattern of "OK, our candidate isn;t as rabidly anti-abortion as that bunch would like.  But look, he picked a Veep who's a fanatic!".  

 

And I'm aware that the classic goal is for the primary candidate to be the friendly, baby-kissing, moderate, and the Veep is the attack dog.  My imaginary pairing might be the opposite.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

Is Warren/Buttigieg a good ticket for you? 

 

I admittedly know almost nothing about either of them.  I'm just discussing the vague aura I get thinking abut either of them.  

 

OTOH, I have a lot of trouble imagining anything that I might learn about either of them that would cause me not to vote for them in the general.  I'd have no problems voting for a convicted child molester over what we've got now.  

 

Now, are they the best choices?  I'm too ignorant to say.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsmarydu

skinsmarydu

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

How about "passionate woman on a mission " instead of "angry woman on a mission" ?  And personally I think women should be angry with the roles assigned to the female class.

My husband hates the "angry white man" label, but he's a white man who walks around *****ing most of the time. I think he earned it.😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites
redskinss

redskinss

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Larry said:

 

I don't think he's remotely qualified to be President.  But I think he might bring a youthful, positive, vibe to a campaign as Veep.

Hasn't that bar been lowered significantly or does that just apply to Republicans?

 

This seems to me to be one of the reasons Democrats lose so much, they hold themselves to the standards we should expect out of our leaders while the competition has no standards at all and doesn't play by any rules.

 

Mayor Pete may not be the most qualified candidate but he's so much more qualified in every possible, measurable standard than trump that I don't really care that he's inexperienced. 

 

Mayor pete has the best combination of intelligence, integrity, character and youth out of all of the democratic candidates. 

 

If it isn't pete it better be Warren because biden and sanders are too old and Warren is right there on the cusp of being too old.

 

My dream ticket is Warren and buttigieg but I'd gladly take pete as the nominee.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo-toni

Riggo-toni

Posted
Posted

How exactly is Buttigieg less qualified than Warren? Such an assertion is ageism. Buttigieg has experience as an executive in government as well as the most military experience of any president since GHWB.  Presidents are executives, not legislators, and all the best Dem candidates have been younger - Obama, Clinton, JFK. Warren has one term in the Senate, and she's the paragon of experience?  LBJ and Mondale had decades in the Senate, but they were still bad choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DogofWar1

DogofWar1

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Corey Booker I’d say. I think a Warren - Booker ticket could be pretty good.

 

This was the exact ticket I was thinking might show up.  If you have a woman at the top, probably want a man on the bottom or else independents sho scare easily will be spookted.

 

Besides the obvious minority inroads it'd create, Booker is a Senator and I tend to think that, philosophically, it's good to have a VP who has some clout on Capitol Hill and can help move legislation.  Is Booker the right guy for that?  Well he's at least more "right" than some of the other options.

 

While I like Butti I think he'd be the wrong choice.  He's struggled to make inroads with minorities due to issues in South Bend, and while he has youth and a good story he doesn't have an inroads with Congress.  He will be a passenger in the Warren admin, while someone with more Congressional experience would be more effective moving legislation.

 

Pete, I think, assuming he loses and also isn't VP to Harris, ought to run for a higher office, whether Governor, Rep, or Senator.  He's got 30 years to pick his POTUS attempt, take your time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

If you seriously think that the word "executive" is what counts as a qualification for POTUS, then I'll observe that by your standard, Trump is vastly more qualified than either of them.  

 

Yes, in my opinion, a US Senator is more qualified to be POTUS than a small town mayor.  

 

Your yardstick may vary.  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
redskinss

redskinss

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

How exactly is Buttigieg less qualified than Warren? Such an assertion is ageism. Buttigieg has experience as an executive in government as well as the most military experience of any president since GHWB.  Presidents are executives, not legislators, and all the best Dem candidates have been younger - Obama, Clinton, JFK. Warren has one term in the Senate, and she's the paragon of experience?  LBJ and Mondale had decades in the Senate, but they were still bad choices.

She's on her second term now and post 2020 election she'll have 8 years experience in national politics where as pete has only local political experience. 

I agree with you that this should not be held against him especially considering what I said earlier about the double standard between Republican and democratic candidates but just making the devil's advocate argument.

 

I'd actually prefer a buttigieg/Warren ticket but I think the other way around is more likely to win, plus, as was brought up earlier, pete can then be groomed for a later presidency and he'll still be plenty young enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo-toni

Riggo-toni

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Larry said:

If you seriously think that the word "executive" is what counts as a qualification for POTUS, then I'll observe that by your standard, Trump is vastly more qualified than either of them.   

As a business executive, Trump incurred 6 bankruptcies and over 3500 lawsuits, so by my standard that makes him vastly more disqualified than anyone.

Also, I specified executive in government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DogofWar1

DogofWar1

Posted
Posted

Here's the thing, executive experience is important BUT a good understanding of Congress (who actually makes the laws the President signs) is similarly important AND having an understanding of national issues is important as well.

 

This is not to say that one cannot have the latter two without serving in Congress, but I think on balance a Senator will have a better understanding than a mayor on both issues.

 

Mayors are important but they are, by definition, mayors of a city or some other similarly sized/dense area.

 

I think Governors have a better argument to make there, especially of states with a good mix of cities and rural areas.  Their representing an entire state will generally mean directing substantially more personnel than a mayor would, for more diverse populations.  This allows them to better mirror the US more generally in terms of addressed problems (some states are better for this than others of course, the Governor of Wyoming likely has less substantially similar experience than, say, the Governor of VA).

 

It's rare anyone will have a better understanding of Congress than a Congressman.  At least among politicians (political science nerds not running for office are excluded).

 

I think Butti is smart enough to fill in the experience gaps with knowledge, but I do think a gap exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Like I said, what I've seen of Mayor Pete has been very positive.  At least in terms of attitude.  Demeanor.  He strikes me as somebody who I want to be important in the Dem Party, down the road.  

 

Maybe in 4-8 years, he could be an Obama.  

 

I'm just not sure I want to vault him from small town mayor to POTUS in one step.  (Not that I'd be heartbroken, either.)  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsmarydu

skinsmarydu

Posted
Posted

Governors have to balance their states' budgets. That's a plus in my book, even though it's becoming harder to accomplish with climate dictating where dollars go with little to no warning. 

The GOP could've had a candidate with experience in '16, but they chose an idiot over Kasich or Jeb!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...