The field is big (23), the stakes are high (defeat Trump), and the race is long (13 months until the Democratic convention).
As a Democratic voter, I am keeping an open mind at this early date. As a political junkie, I am fascinated by the dynamics of who rises to the top and who fades away. Biden's name recognition is keeping him at the top but we all know that the early front-runner doesn't always keep the lead. Here is the latest Iowa poll, showing 4-5 candidates polling significantly ahead of the pack.
de Blasio 0%
Any surprises? I think it's surprising that Cory Booker isn't doing better. The rise of Buttigieg is interesting. Elizabeth Warren keeps inching up n the polls.
Do any of you Democrats have an early favorite, or are you staying open like me?
I'm not a Democrat, but I think Biden and Harris are an ideal combination for several reasons.
- They have geographic diversity. Biden is east coast and Harris is west coast.
- Obviously, they have age and gender diversity.
- Harris compensates for Biden's older age.
- Neither one is extremist, unlike the current pair in the White House.
- Some people may not be ready to vote for a woman for President, but they might be comfortable with one as Vice President. Then Harris could run for President with more acceptance in 4 or 8 years.
Sanders is too far left. Warren is an inflammatory demagogue.
EDIT: I said Biden is too far left when I actually meant Sanders.
Yes, that seems like a good combination that would easily beat Trump in the general election which, for many, is the number one ptiority.
I'm not a Democrat but I'd like to say that I doubt America has a problem with a competent woman in the office of the President.
Point well taken. Some people thought Hillary was a competent woman based on her lengthy experience as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. Some people rejected her for other reasons.
Otherwise, I can only say that I know people who wouldn't vote for a woman for President.
I know people who say they would but always find something wrong with the female candidate, often things for which they give a male candidate a pass.
Clinton had too much baggage. And when she whined that women should vote for her because she was a woman that was bound to cause independent minded women to bristle.
I'm from the South, and I observe that the Christian conservatives have a problem with women in positions of authority. At least my state does. I see that some of the states in the Southeast seem to be getting past that, but I don't hold my breath.
I'm from the south. Born and raised. I don't see that, at all. Not in politics.
I lived in Missouri for five years, and being from liberal Eugene, Oregon, I felt like I'd been transported back to the 70s.
Have to call you out on this one, Promisem.
The fact that people are not ready to vote for a female as President, why not?
People in 1960 were not ready for a Catholic as President or in 2008 for a Black Man as President?
Seems like you and I have spoken on this before. There has been a female chancellor of Germany (Angela Markel) or Prime Minister of Great Britain, Theresa May. When I speak of America and her biases, why are we behind the rest of the Western World in failing to acknowledge a woman's capacity for leadership, just because she is a woman? So, there are many aspects of Governance where Europe is the evolved society when compared with "the States".
If we can live with a male President and Vice President, what is there to fear with women holding both offices simultaneously?
"The fact that people are not ready to vote for a female as President, why not? "
If I'm wrong, so be it. I simply think that some people voted against Hillary Clinton because she was a woman.
You make a good point about Europe. For many reasons, I suggest that the U.S. is more conservative and therefore will take longer to accept a female President.
I'm not personally opposed to a woman President. That's why I suggested earlier that Harris would make a good VP, which would move the acceptance needle.
I was shocked that many people I spoke to in the last election wouldn't even consider voting for a woman. I have to agree that America is more conservative about that, for some reason I don't understand. I suspect a male candidate would have to choose a woman as VP to perhaps get her there in the future. I don't like it, but think it's realistic.
I also think Bernie's time has come and gone. And I can't figure out why some of these people are running, they have no chance. But they will be out of it soon.
I want structural change as to how things operate, only Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders understand the obstacles working against a more equitable society and express willingness to engage the adversaries head-on. They also have a substantial track record that support their zeal in these matters.
Biden "sleeps with the enemy", he is thick as thieves with the very entities that we need to confront and challenge. He no longer represents the heart and soul of the party.
The rest for me are "celebrity candidates" or akin to a beauty contest.
We are in perilous times and I can only respond to candidates offering substantive solutions, style in itself is no longer good enough.
I think that Liz has the big mo and I am proud to officially join her campaign for the nomination.
Do you think Sanders has any chance to win? I would rather vote for someone who has a chance to win, even if that candidate doesn't entirely represent my beliefs, than vote for someone who has little chance of winning.
Hi, Promisem, I think Bernie's time has come and gone.
I think that Liz can win. After all who would have thought that someone like Donald Trump would ever be a serious contender? If he could win, anyone can.
We didn't think Trump would win because we didn't think the Russians would help get him elected.
I doubt the same is true about Warren.
The Tea Party people got him elected. Not the Russians.
This makes an interesting read to help explain how Russia helped elect Trump: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018 … -for-trump
I like Liz, but I'm afraid she is carrying some unwarranted baggage. Kind of like Nancy Pelosi. I say "unwarranted" because I think it comes from the white male establishment who sees them as a threat to themselves. I think Nancy would make a great and effective president if it were not for the baggage. If Liz gets the nomination, I'll vote for her.
I agree with this. Pelosi is excoriated for her political machinations while McConnell, who is way more devious, is praised.
Your point about Pelosi fits my point about Harris or Warren for President. You say it well when you identify the fierce opposition as being from the "white male establishment".
That doesn't mean many white males wouldn't vote for Harris or Warren. It's just that getting elected to the White House requires winning over many segments of the population.
For women candidates, the white male establishment isn't one of them.
It is certainly my goal to reduce the power and influence of the "white male power structure" to the greatest extent possible, as a start toward a more equitable system. Will she succeed? Who knows. But I have much more confidence that she would do her best toward that end over the other candidates, Bernie excepted as he is in the same place.
That is why Wall Street sophisticos and the Chamber of Commerce refer to her as a dangerous radical, accused of being against free enterprise. She fills the antagonists with righteous fear while they believe that they can manipulate the other candidates to just play along and get along, as they always have.
When Wall Street and the plutocrats call her a radical threat, she must be doing something right. I consider that an endorsement in itself.
I agree with most of what you said. Warren is winning me over with her"I have a plan for that" campaign. While my mind is still open, she is currently my first choice.
With all due respect, Warren has resorted to inflammatory, divisive and irresponsible rhetoric about slavery reparations and paying off trillions in student debt.
I can vote for a Democrat as easily as a Republican if it's the right person for the job. But I don't think we need anyone on the far left anymore than someone on the far right in the White House.
This country needs less extremism and more stability.
I respect your point of view, but I don't see her as extremist. Maybe I missed the inflammatory rhetoric you ate referring to.
I respect your point of view as well.
Reparations are divisive and inflammatory. Obama killed that debate, but now Warren is starting it up again.
How ironic that a black politician (actually half black) stopped the controversy about reparations and a white politician started it up again.
I am hearing you, Promisem.
I don't consider her inflammatory, but outspoken and I respect that over flipfloppers and accomodationists, the times call for both stark and candid.
I think that the reparations idea is not so good, but reparations can mean many things, beyond transfers of wealth. I can't get many whites to even acknowledge that a wrong had taken place and its effects on those victimized.
I have got billions of dollars to bail out banks, on this "too big to fail" concept. That, to this very date, has not really been corrected and it is the conservatives that want to sweep the circumstances surrounding 2008 under the rug. Well, I don't forget as easily. If I have money to bail out banks or to finance profligate military spending, i don't see why we cannot invest a little toward the people that will BE the economy in the coming years.
The status quo is already the extreme right in my opinion. I don't see the Right speaking of moderation, how do you think that they have been as successful as they have been? Donald Trump is that symbol. We need to move somewhat further to the left before I could even contemplate pulling back from one extremist pole or the other.
What conservatives and moderates call stability, is so just much Trumpism hash warmed over a bit.
Do you think that reparations aren't inflammatory and divisive?
The concept is "politically" unacceptable. I would just as soon not see her go there.
Isn't everything inflammatory and divisive at this point?
I understand why someone would ask that question because of the damage that Trump has done in the White House. But I don't think certain candidates act that way.
I think Elizabeth Warren is also my first choice. What does baggage matter anymore? She is smart and fights battles for average Americans against corporate greed and malfeasance. She has always done so.
If in a choice between Warren and Trump, if other Americans want to pick Trump, then I'm willing to live with that.
"I want structural change as to how things operate". That succinctly sums up my decision-making priorities when it comes to 2020 candidates. I would add that the more I listen to Tulsi Gabbard, she also has my support.
I glad to hear that I am not alone in that sentiment.
Ms. Gabbard has an impressive resume.
I have overlooked her because she is SO YOUNG. If she wins the nomination and the Presidency, she will be recorded as the youngest person to have ever held the office in American history.
I associate youth with inexperience, an unfortunate bias of mine. But, I should know better as the youngest men to hold the office or elected into it were both great leaders and exceptional Chief Executives: Theodore Roosevelt and JFK.
If she can come within striking distance, I will throw my hat into the ring for her.
She is young and as much as I support her, I don't see her coming within striking distance of the top office this time around. However, she would make an excellent VP or Secretary of State as well. I'll be pleasantly surprised if her popularity does rise quickly. At least according to Google stats, she was the most searched candidate after the first round of debates. I see a lot of criticism of Bernie being an old, white, man that's a little too far left. I could imagine a really strong ticket seeing him paired with a young, female, practical, military veteran like Gabbard.
This is why the Dems will lose: "the stakes are high (defeat Trump)"
That is the Dems' focus, and that doesn't sell to 70% of Americans, what they want are solutions to their problems, they want a strong economy, they want to feel safe in their own homes. Those issues sell, 'we must defeat Trump' doesn't, only those caught up in that BS care, and that is a minority of voters.
Hi Ken. I agree the Dems should focus on the issues, and they are. That doesn't change the fact that getting Trump out of office is the single most important goal for 2020 for well over half of Americans.
The first problem is believing 'well over half of Americans' think the 'single most important goal for 2020' is removing Trump.
I would be willing to bet my life that for 75% or more Americans, that isn't their #1 issue or concern. And I highly doubt it is even 25% but I'll go with it. Lets say the Liberal/Progressive/Democrats that are die-hard and fully focused on Trump = 25% Of America.
That 25% is countered by the 25% of die-hard Trump supporters. Leaving the other 50% of Americans looking for what they consider their best option, those who could care less about Dem vs. Rep politics.
America got Trump because our D.C. leadership abandoned the working class and moved forward on a global agenda abandoning the Nation's best interests, over the course of the previous quarter century before Trump.
The entire political body on the whole also abandoned recognized core values for a continued shift to liberal progressivism. Think back on the election, there was talk about no-gender bathrooms, and men using pre-teen girl's showers in schools. America wasn't quite brainwashed to accept that level of perverseness, yet.
The combination of the above led to the wave of support for what Trump campaigned on... a solid block of the 'American masses' were tired of the 'establishment' leadership and Trump was the anti-establishment candidate.
Trump still is the anti-establishment candidate, CNN, MSNBC, WP, NYT, and the Democrats in D.C. despise him and make no bones about it... they are out to destroy him, and do not even feign otherwise.
The problem is... 75% of America isn't on board with destroying Trump. It's a losing effort, it isn't selling to America, and it won't.
It's not that Democrats are out to destroy Trump. That is how you view it. It's viewed by around 63 million Americans that it's time to stop Trump from destroying America, specifically the rule of law in America and common decency.
Actually that is exactly what their efforts revolve around, and what their goals are.
From the Russian Hoax Conspiracy Theories to the Impeach for Obstruction efforts, the Democrats & supporting outlets have been focused on this since day one, and that effort continues currently.
The DNC recently commissioned a poll of middle class voters.
It found the middle-class trusts Trump by a whopping 35 points over Democrats to keep the economy ontrack.
Mueller’s law firm had given 99.71% of donations to Democrats. He’s best friends with former FBI Director Comey, who also hates Trump. Mueller named a team of prosecutors who had given all of their political donations to Obama and Hillary. That group wasn't exactly trying to help Trump, it was more like the criminals investigating the newly elected sheriff, they still couldn't pull off their efforts to destroy him.
Its been three years of efforts by the bulk of the media and the 'establishment' types to destroy Trump, and his poll numbers have barely waivered. Most of America tuned out CNN and the Nancy Pelosi politicians long ago.
Those who are convinced that Trump is evil incarnate will never change their minds... but they have a shock coming for them in 2020 when they find out the majority of America does not share in those beliefs.
Not really sure which planet "Nationalists" live on but Bozo Trump Obstructed Justice, Abused Power and plotted with Vladimir Putin's SPIES to unlawfully obtain the presidency of the United States: Those are just a few of the CRIMES he's committed and will become acquainted with a prison cell very soon:
If by some SATANIC Intervention little junk trump actually becomes involved in the 2020 election he will be swiftly and decisively OUSTED along with his Communist Russian Loving Republican weirdos:
Biden 53% Trump 40%
That's some serious propaganda bullshit right there Ken. Considering that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Trump's daughter Ivanka and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, are all clients of WilmerHale, the firm Mueller left to assume the position of special prosecutor, it didn't appear to be an issue for the Trumps about the firm's political donations.
And I love it when Trump supporters call it a Russian hoax. The crime of hacking the DNC and releasing the e-mails to swing the election was not a hoax, no matter how much denial people like you live in. And I'll take the word of over a thousand federal prosecutors who affirm that Trump did, in fact, commit obstruction of justice in their expert opinion over your far-right wing view.
As for your DNC commissioned poll, care to provide a link since it's not easily found on the internet, which likely means that it's fabricated.
What is provable, is that Trump was named as a co-conspirator in a felony campaign finance violation. Trump was listed as having committed ten acts of obstruction of justice. And Trump, literally, just admitted on national television that he would violate the law if a foreign country offered him campaign dirt on an opponent. The FEC chairman had to put out a statement that she couldn't believe she needed to put out, that what Trump said he'd do was illegal.
Clearly makes my rule of law case. As for common decency, what you're going to find in 2020, much like you saw in 2018 when the GOP lost a record amount of seats in the House, is that most Americans are tired of the lies and the childish behavior, let alone the $100 million in golf expenses and hours of wasted 'executive time.'
You really don't get it, same as a few others here who believed two years ago Trump would be removed and still believe its going to happen.
It doesn't matter if you have "a thousand federal prosecutors who affirm" Trump did this or that.
It doesn't matter that "The FEC chairman had to put out a statement" about this or that.
It doesn't matter that CNN & MSNBC & NYT & WP & NPR have spent three years (and will spend the next two) doing everything they can to disparage and denigrate Trump's actions and reputation.
This is what matters to the 50 - 60% of Americans in the middle, the ones that swing each and every election, the ones that DON'T care for D.C. politics, news media rants or BS obstruction charges:
In his closing remarks after the only presidential debate of the 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan famously looked into the camera and asked the voters, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
This boiled down that year’s contest to a question that most voters eventually ask themselves, consciously or not, in every election involving an incumbent president.
The obvious answer in 1980 was, “No,” and Jimmy Carter became unemployed.
The same implicit question will determine the outcome of the 2020 election.
Indeed, according to Gallup, the general public has already decided on the answer: “Fifty percent say they are better off today than they were a year ago… the first time since 2007 that at least half of the public has said they are financially better off than a year ago.”
To put this in historical perspective Gallup points out, “Only 11 times in 109 polls stretching back to 1976 have at least half of those polled said they were in better financial shape than they had been a year prior.”
And the good news doesn’t end there. A record number of Americans are optimistic about where their personal finances are headed during the next 12 months.
The people who have benefited most from Trump’s economic policies don’t read the New York Times. Nor do they devote a lot of angst to the value of the euro or the state of the U.N.
Democratic propaganda notwithstanding, the beneficiaries of Trump's Administration of America are, in fact, working people who had enormous difficulty finding jobs during the anemic economy that the Democrats and Obama told them was the “new normal.”
And those who are lucky enough to be employed don’t see the raises, bonuses, and tax cuts they have received during the past year as the “crumbs” Nancy Pelosi sneered at in January of 2018.
So, let me state this bluntly... America doesn't care about the Obstruction charges or the Russia Conspiracy garbage, or anything of that ilk.
"It's the economy, stupid" a slight variation of the phrase "The economy, stupid", which James Carville coined when he was a campaign strategist of Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign... that is what will decide 2020.
What a load of horse$hit, Ken! Your post is ludicrous, as usual....
Your 50% of the population may not care about the rule of law, but there is a large percentage of the country that actual does.
As for the economy, let's actually delve into the numbers.
-Average jobs per month are less than Obama's final term, who had 75 straight months of job growth.
-Unemployment went from 7.7 to 4.7 in Obama's last term. In two and a half years, it's continued along the same trend line Obama had in his final term, decreasing from 4.7 to 3.6.
-GDP is up slightly but so is the deficit. Pumping cash we don't have into the economy will eventually come back to bite us.
-Manufacturing jobs are up under Trump, no denying that.
-Tariffs are costing the country 29 billion in agricultural bailouts.
-The feeling is that most middle class Americans believe that the Trump Tax cut only benefits the top 1% (https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghil … 503e8313e0)
To recap, instead of rocket fuel, the tax cuts ended up being more like a sugar high. They gave the US economy a brief jolt while triggering an $800 billion hole in the federal budget.
The average quarterly gains to 401k's under Obama was 2.26% to 2.16% for Trump. The last quarter of 2018, thanks to Trump's fruitless shutdown of the US government and volatility with his trade war with China, was the worst December since 1931 and made for the worst year in a decade. Trump's volatility is actually holding the economy back.
When you're not buying into the false narratives being fed to you and actually study the data, you would realize that things aren't much different with Trump than what we had with Obama.
The people may care about the 'rule of law'...
What they don't care about is the absurd charges and politicking going on in D.C., like obstruction or any of the idiocy the House can stir up.
Congress has an 8% approval rating for a reason, people don't trust them, and don't care at all for their BS political games.
So what you consider 'rule of law' most Americans consider BS politics.
As for the economy, the people will decide for themselves if it is going good for them or not, we are not close enough to the election for it to impact the outcome... what is going on a year from now will be what matters, but the majority right now is feeling good about where they are at, if that continues, Trump will be re-elected... the economy matters far more than anything else to the majority of voters.
I can understand your point of view about the economy. What I've proved with facts is that the economy really isn't that much different with Trump than with the last Democratic president. So, with all things being equal on that front, voters are going to look at the other factors.
Anyone with a shred of honesty and dignity is going to make Trump appear as unworthy for the office as people found Clinton to be. People have tired of him using the office for personal gain, violating our laws, alienating our allies, and acting like a grade-schooler with his childish insults.
I believe you over-estimate the value of all the other issues. I think a review of history, of how voters will support almost anyone so long as the economy is going strong and their future is looking bright, would lead you to conclude what the results of the 2020 election will be.
Where the economy and job growth is at one year from now will decide the election, the rest is so much angst that won't matter.
Yes, all good points Ken, but we've never had such a slimeball in the WH before. It does make a difference.....
"Where the economy and job growth is at one year from now will decide the election, the rest is so much angst that won't matter."
I think that is a very true statement.
I think that with a normal president that would be true. In this case, with a good economy, Trump cannot get above about 44% approval. He barely squeaked out a win against an unlikable candidate in 2016. Unless we are in for some major surpses, I don't see any of the Democratic candidates having anywhere close to the negative baggage of Hillary Clinton.
The most recent Gallup poll, conducted between April 17 and 30, put Trump’s rating at a high of 46%—a one percentage point increase from his previously held high of 45%, when he first took office.
In every instance in which Trump's overall approval rating dropped below 45%, approval among Republicans was at 78% or better.
And while Democrats in Congress are not yet ready to accept the purported conclusions of the Mueller Report, it appears that the American public feels otherwise—or else the strength of the economy is giving them enough reason to hold their president in higher esteem. Trump’s approval rating steadily climbed in April 2019, from 45% to 46%, and hit a near-historic high of 91% among Republicans.
The Above excerpted from:
http://fortune.com/2019/05/10/trumps-ap … ting-2019/
Again, even if you and several others here believe he is some type of monster... that viewpoint is not shared by a majority of Americans, no matter how much you may believe it, or CNN or MSNBC says it.
So why does his own polls show he's behind several prospective--8 I think--Democratic hopefuls?
My point is that his approval rating should be much higher than it is given the state of the economy. It's about the same as it was when he was elected, and like I aid, he barely squeaked out a victory against an unlikable candidate with a lot of baggage.
Believe me, I am in no way discounting his ability to squeak out another victory. I'm just pointing out the circumstances are not the same as last time.
And to be clear, I don't think he's a monster. I think he is a sad, mentally ill, dishonest, corrupt human being who is not fit to be president.
Not given the circumstances.
He has been blasted as a villain, unlike any President in modern history, with charges of being a Russian puppet to being worse than Hitler.
Considering Trump was under that cloud of media bombardment, and people had yet to determine what the truth of it was 45% is good number, unlike most Presidents, there was no honeymoon period for Trump.
But now the majority of Americans feel they have closure with all the BS charges of Russian conspiracy, the Mueller report did not find him guilty and they are ready (more than ready) to move on. And that combined with the economy should see his numbers rising.
Interestingly enough, if you review Obama's numbers (below), a President who was overly fawned over by the media (save Fox News) and who was supported initially by a Democrat controlled Congress, he spent the majority of his 8 years hovering in the low 40s.
He did reach a high of 59% one month, but the majority of time he was in the 40s.
Another thing to consider, is while Trump might not be as popular, that doesn't mean people will necessarily correlate that to other option being a better choice for President. You don't have to like your Accountant, you just have to trust them to do a good job with your bookkeeping and taxes, I think a lot of 'Independent' voters look at it that way... might not like the guy, but he is the best option to keep the economy going.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/bar … roval.aspx
I don't think anyone would Trust Trump to do their bookkeeping, Ken!
Like I said, I'm not discounting his ability to squeak out another victory despite his low approval rating. I just think it will be far less likely this time, barring any major negative revelations that could arise as the campaign goes on. We have a long way to go.
And that opinion is interesting in and of itself.
I see it the other way, voters had good reason to doubt his ability to be President in 2016, he had no political experience.
People also could let their imaginations run wild and all the end-of-times predictions people were making if he got elected probably swayed some voters who feared the worst.
But he didn't push the button to start a nuclear war, the economy didn't take a nose dive under his leadership, so all those end-of-times stories that were supposed to happen if he got elected proved untrue.
Trying to pitch those horror stories now would seem ludicrous to most people, the world obviously is not coming to an end, and in fact many people are doing better now, than they were two years ago.
Well, Ken, for many Americans Trump IS the horror story. I see no need to enumerate why, as you are obviously among those who don't care about the lying and degradation of our institutions and obsequious pandering to murdering dictators.
Yes Pretty, the right ignores the damage done to the office by Trump, and his angering of our allies as well. If Obama had acted like Trump he would have been kicked out by his own party. I too would have been in favor of this as I cannot abide bullies and pathological liars, especially in the Oval Office.
And if Hillary had won.....
Yes, but I would change "the rght" to "Trump supporters." Some principled conservatives are not on the Trump Train. Of course, none of them occupy a seat in Congress.
Ken could not more effectively be outlining a Democratic strategy for winning in 2020.
That strategy is this: make a strong case to middle America that the Trump economy has not been a benefit to the average American. Show that his economy is only a benefit to the wealthy and that more jobs for average people have not been created. Then explain how you will make the economy work for middle America.
It's really that simple and if the Democrats don't figure that strategy out and lose because their only campaign motto is "Defeat Trump", I will have yet more reasons never to give them a penny.
They are going to have a hard time showing that, to the 4 million newly employed people who formerly were not.
Or the millions who have received raises in fields that have been stagnant for decades.
Or the people who no longer have to pay a 'tax' for not having (not being able to afford) health insurance.
Its a hard sell convincing people they are worse off, when in fact many millions are better off now than before he came to office.
"They are going to have a hard time showing that, to the 4 million newly employed people who formerly were not."
Do the statistics distinguish between a job filled by someone who was previously unemployed, and a job filled by someone who is already working three jobs and needs a fourth just to get by?
"Or the millions who have received raises in fields that have been stagnant for decades."
A simple comparison between how much CEO pay has increased in the last few decades on average vs how much the pay of ordinary workers has increased in the same period should put to bed any suggestion that ordinary workers have something to be grateful for.
"Or the people who no longer have to pay a 'tax' for not having (not being able to afford) health insurance."
The people who have been saved from bankruptcy may have a different view.
"Its a hard sell convincing people they are worse off, when in fact many millions are better off now than before he came to office."
I don't think it would be difficult to reinforce the fact that ordinary people have not benefited nearly as much as people who are already rich. A few simple graphs is all that's needed.
It's not just the Dems who want Trump out of office. It's also independents who respect the Constitution and don't want Vladimir Putin electing our Presidents.
Trump has a disapproval rating of 63% among independents. That's the real reason why he will lose, unless of course Putin helps him again.
Under the last Democratic president, the stock market doubled, there was better job growth than we have under Trump, unemployment dropped five points (compared to 1.1 for Trump), and the deficit was significantly lower than we have currently. Selling trust in running the economy shouldn't be an issue for any Democrat. All that growth while also balancing environmental protections for the country, something Trump has completely lied about as a concern.
There are plenty of policy initiatives to focus on, but it will take someone who can direct the narrative.
Ken has a pretty good point here. If Dems lose focus and just talk about Trump, they will lose. If they focus on their plans for America and what it means to average Americans, they will win.
There are more independents in the U.S. than either Democrats or Republicans.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/part … ation.aspx
The independents will determine who wins the election and not Dems or Repubs.
And right now, Trump has a 63% disapproval rating among independents.
Since I am from NJ, I am familiar with Cory Booker, and am also surprised he isn't doing better. He's a peacekeeper, but basically has been a hard worker and keeps his word. I also like Liz Warren, happy to see she is moving up. I want to keep an open mind this early. Thanks for posting the list, I was so sick of hearing about Trump talking about accepting foreign help in elections, I turned the TV off. Also noticed promisem's duo, and Biden/Harris would be a good. I like the East/West combo as well. A lot can happen in this long amount of time.
If I was an American citizen I would vote for the person who has the most credible plan for tackling the clime breakdown problem.
As Climate change is the biggest problem of today and tomorrow. There will be more extreme weather, drought and bushfires. People leave there home and migrate because of the climate breakdown. There is so much attached to the climate breakdown problem that effects our daily life that politicians have to make it an important issue in their policies.
I normally would agree, but the current attacks on democracy are making it much harder to do anything about climate change.
True. Hopefully the next president will address both issues. We do not have the luxury any more to beat around the bush concerning climate change without making any decisions.
The constant lies, fake news and attacks on the freedom of the press doesn't do the world much good either..
Sometimes to win, you have to choose a candidate that appeals to the opposite party that hates women and minorities.
I don't think most Republicans hate women and minorities, but they definitely seem to feel entitled to exercise power and control over the lives of women and minorities.
They may not hate them, but I think they view them as pets that must be trained to obey and kept under control. Their Pauline new testament says so. Even their women are deluded into believing this.
As a Republican for most of my life, but no longer, I can say that my wife and daughters have been anything but pets.
I don't think powerful Republicans feel the need to "exercise power and control over the lives of women and minorities". They just have power and want to hold onto it. It's simple self interest.
Promisem, while it is natural for them to have power and want to hold on to it, it is my interest that the "power" be more evenly spread through society, that does not work for them but is imperative for me. So, I will be at odds with most GOP and conservatives most of the time, for that very reason. "Self interest" can be seen as selfish and controlling in of itself
You mean the party that disdains old white men who want to control everyone else. Other old white men are pretty fine. I'm married to one, after all.
I'm an old white man, and there is no way I can control my other half.
If you think that the Democrat and Republican parties both aren't equally full of people who have dedicated their lives to controlling people and telling them how to spend their money then you are diluted.
Well dammit Onus, why don't you run for office ? Of course, then you'd have to reveal your true identity.....and you don't want that!
Hey, Randy, I disagree with your idea that people who don't use their own name here in the forums are somehow suspect. I worry that if you continue to bother people about it you will get banned again. I say live and let live.
No problem with your disagreeing with me, Pretty. I simply don't like trolls..
Perhaps it's like Trumps private financial records - if people don't go completely, 100%, public with all information it is obvious they have something to hide?
No, it's not like that at all. I serve on the Planning Commission in my small town and I am required to file a statement of financial interest every year with the state ethics commission. The people I serve deserve to know whether decisions I make are influenced by my own financial interests. The same applies to Trump. He is not "special."
At least the Dems are equal opportunity controllers whereas some old white male Republicans target women, transgender, and other people who are not white, male, and straight.
Both parties are about special rights for special interest groups. Ever thought about why it is that in order to get equality for LGBT, cops, military, old people, immigrants, it always costs a huge amount of money and expansion of government programs?
All they care about is getting as much of our money as possible and as much power as possible. And they pit the nation against its self to do it.
It's great to read all these comments on this thread. As an outsider, the only news I normally get from the US is through newspaper/digital, TV or other media outlets.
To read what you guys feel and think as a mixed bunch of Americans from all over the place is the reason why I'm still on hubpages. (coming from squidoo...)
It's still a year to go before the elections if I'm right. But as the US is one of the most influential countries on this planet, it is a big event and talked about outside the US too.
We've had 4 years Trump. I don't think we will have another 4 years for a lot of reasons. (one of them being an optimist and I still believe in mankind...and I doubt if Trump wants another 4 years himself.)
As parties shift and you only have two choices in the US, the probability that the democrats will take over are realistic.
And the question of who it will be will unfold itself the next months. As Trump was a radical right, it would not surprise me that the voters choice would swing to the more left side of the democratic party. Biden is old style, something many people don't want any more, and one of the reasons people voted for an outsider like Trump and not Clinton. To win, you have to be strong in the media. So in the end my bet is on Warren or Sanders, or an Republican outsider.
Funny thing is that a Republican in Spain (where I live) is connected with socialism, communism and anarchism!!!! during the war with the fascism of Franco
If I remember from my Dan Brown novels (Origin), wasn't that Franco period a pretty dark time for the country?
I can't speak from personal experience or family stories as I'm a Dutch immigrant. But yes, the Franco dictatorship which lasted till his death in '75 was grim and still has it's heritage. As it was connected with the Catholic church and Opus Dei (that's were Dan Brown comes in...) They (the church and OD) are still connected with the PP (Peoples Party - the right wing party) - just as the church has it's influence on American politics (The Bush family - Mike Pence...) - and Dutch Politics too (a party called CDA). Actually in most, if not all western countries there are parties that are connected with a religion.
In Europe you see a shift in voters. People do not vote traditionally any more. It used to be very simple. If you were a socialist you voted for the working class party (Labour, or other) if you where a Catholic on a catholic party, if you were a liberal on a right wing party. Not any more, voting has become much more fluid.
I guess the social media are also a part of why voting has become something different. And I have my doubts about the social media like Facebook and their role in American and World politics. I do not believe in their neutrality and as they have such a power over public opinion it should be watched carefully. Fake news is easier to make then to correct it.
I hope I didn't stray to much from the subject....
Hi Peter, this thread has been interesting already and I hope you will continue to offer your perspective on American politics.
Peter......Given that you get most of your news from the media, you should know that the media does not represent all of America. The media in, in fact, heavily biased to the Left by about 92%. I learned this ,many decades ago when a Liberal professor, who was convinced that the media and newspapers were "fair and balanced," decided to do a meta-analysis on his own to substantiate his belief. To his utter surprise, he learned that the media was indeed highly biased in it's reporting; that it did favor left leaning policies and politicians and that it under reported positives of right leaning policies and politicians, and even undermined said policies and politicians.
Even on HP (which tends to lean Left), if you really pay attention to the language used, it should not be difficult for you to realize who is using sensible language and who is simply name-calling.
Anyway, the following are some of Trump's accomplishments, in case you were not aware of any:
Almost 4 million jobs created since election.
More Americans are now employed than ever recorded before in our history.
More than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since election.
Manufacturing jobs growing at the fastest rate in more than three decades.
Economic growth averaging 4.2 percent.
Unemployment claims at 50-year low.
Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.
African-American unemployment has achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
Hispanic-American unemployment is at the lowest rate ever recorded.
Asian-American unemployment the lowest rate ever recorded.
Women’s unemployment the lowest rate in 65 years.
Youth unemployment the lowest rate in nearly half a century.
Lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma.
And that's only a few of Trump's accomplishments (which have zero to do with the former administration).
As for climate change, Yes, we are to be good stewards of the earth, but you might be surprised to learn the politics and the big money be behind "global warming." Most Americans are clueless regarding the corruption within the IPCC and in government. Here is a book you might want to read. Climate: The Counter Consensus A Scientist Speaks (Independent Minds) by Robert M. Carter
"Dr.Carter is a world leading palaeoclimatologist. He investigates the past cycles of the earth's unpredictable natural climate change, especially over the last few million years of planetary ice ages."
As an aside, I am very close with someone who knew an actual rocket scientist. He was one that NASA called to examine the Hubble rocket (an outside source who was highly respected). He examined all the plans, calculations, in short, everything. He was asked whether it was safe to launch the rocket. The scientist said, "No" Absolutely not. Well, NASA launched the rocket anyway, and we all know what happened.
What is my point? He's also examined all the data from the IPCC and various "scientists" regarding "global warming." His conclusion? It's trash! I believe him.
Anyhoo, because Hubpages is left leaning and many people who post on here are left leaning, I 'm pretty sure they will have this post deleted. That is what the Left does. They censor anything that does not agree with their beliefs. That is Fascism. Trump is not a Fascist as the Left has claimed. He is actually trying to uphold our laws. The thing is, the status quo doesn't like that, so they're doing everything they can to tear him down and people who are uninformed simply go along and follow. It's a sad state of affairs, but not for the reason you think.
Anyhoo, my two cents. Lets see how long this stays published. Lol.
I can't comment on everything you say as I don't have much time for now.
Only that Bias has always been in the newspapers and is nothing new.
What is new, is that we have the internet, and we can get our news from all kinds of different media outlets. Do you watch or read Al Jazeera for instance, or Fox News. You can do both. They are two completely different point of view towards what is happening in the Middle east for instance. It's up to you to choose what news channel to follow.
Love that line Savvy put in that none of the accomplishments had anything to do with the previous administration.
-Trump is averaging less job creation than Obama, who had 75 straight months of job creation. So that 4 million jobs created is a nice number, but still less than at the same point during Obama's last term.
-Median Household Income was $61,372 in 2017, $60,309 in 2016, and $58,476 in 2015. 2016 was also a new record, up from a post-Bush economy low of $54,569. So if you're scoring at home, Obama, in his final term raised it close to $6,000 in his four years. Trump in year 1 - just $1,000. He gets the benefit of a continuing trend here.
-Unemployment: Obama in his final term dropped the unemployment rate from 7.7 to 4.7. Trump to date has dropped it from 4.7 to 3.6 in two and a half. Unemployment was trending down long before Trump took office, so all those other claims of lowest for this group and that group is not all about Trump. He benefits from a continuing trend.
Randy, I see you have some statistics from FactCheck.org. In fairness, they try to have decent stats when referring to Democrats. Not so much when it comes to Republicans. Anyhoo, I know you don't care about that so I'll get to the point.
I am bothered by the fact that Obama mostly created wealth for corporations, within his special interest groups and specifically those who donated to his campaign and which supported his presidency. But Obama did little to help the average worker in eight years compared to what Trump has done in less than two years.
Hence, Obama did not promote sustained economic growth for the average worker, but he did promote sustained economic growth for the elite. Trump came in and made a difference for average people as well.
Obama, during his final term, promoted jobs in the servicing industry for Americans whom he had formerly ignored. I recall many people complaining about having to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Obama's policies were not pro-growth. They were merely pro-employment for the short term. That is where Factcheck.org gives a partial explanation about his accomplishments....which is where you seem to have retrieved your data.
As for your assertion regarding 75 months of job creation, I don't know. I do suspect there were jobs for some middle managers and know there were crap part-time jobs for service workers. But that's hardly impressive.
Trump, on the other hand, brought back manufacturing for middle class Americans----something Obama said could "never be done."
Not that you will ever understand, but supporters of Trump continue to support him because he is not beholden to special interests lobbyists. (He doesn't need their pork) Unlike Obama, who didn't mind the extra money. Furthermore, Obama spent an inordinate amount of time entertaining Hollywood celebrities at the White House (and golfing)....not to mention the time and taxpayer money Michelle Obama spent traveling to foreign countries on vacation with her mother, children, friends and a plethora of Secret Service Agents in luxury hotels, enjoying expensive meals and tourism.
If anything, Trump has done his best to undo all the needless regulations that Obama imposed on corporations that Obama didn't support, i.e., non union businesses. Did you know that Bank of America is now paying tellers $17. per hour in poor states and will soon begin paying $20 per hour? In other words, regular people without a college education can now make a decent living. That's a far cry from the P/T waitress jobs Obama took credit for in 2016.
Anyway, this thread has gone off track. I will watch the Democratic debates. I'm rather interested in what Warren has to say. She has the most energy....much more than Biden. I don't trust her as far as I can throw her, (she's a con artist having used her non-Indian heritage to garner a lucrative job, among other things....) but she will put up a fight. For the record, her arguments about HUD and Dr. Carson are ridiculous. Anyway, a mortgage lender I know says she's absurd. Okay, yeah, I know lots of people. But ethical business educators have no respect for her. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be surprised if she comes up on top since Biden is so low energy and keeps making dumb mistakes on the campaign trail. Let's face it, Democrats are okay with politicians who cater to special interest lobbyists and corporations as long as they keep it on the down-low, just like Obama did. Just saying...
First off, my name isn't Randy. Second, I get my facts from a variety of places, but for the jobs and unemployment, I go straight to .gov sites as they are the official stats.
Your hypocrisy in that post is amazing considering Trump's tax cut sends a majority of the benefit to corporations and the top 1%. You ding Obama for golf and vacations while Trump is set to surpass Obama's 8-year total in these areas in just three years in office.
And while you provide no proof whatsoever that Obama catered to special interest groups, the mere fact that Trump spends tax dollars at his properties is visible proof that he is using his official position to make a profit.
In terms of what you ended with, on some of that we agree. I think Biden has the best name recognition coming out of the gate, but he keeps stumbling. And Warren is a fighter with a plan. While not many on the right will be able to get behind her because they buy into Trump's school yard bully act, the left will enjoy watching her run policy circles around Trump.
My bad, I though it was Randy who had replied to me for some reason. Yes, I know you likely get your stats from gov. sites or that Factcheck notates that they get their information from said sites. In fact, saw all of the numbers you listed and many you didn't. Some were not so flattering.
Yes, Trump can be like a bull in a China shop, but that's better than being condescending, as in the case of Warren. She's a street fighter. You'll see.
At any rate, I do not feel any antagonism toward you or anyone as long as we all refrain from making personal attacks against one another. Have a good night, Valeant and thank you for responding.
I was a bit confused about the Hubble rocket as I’d never heard about it. I guess you meant the famous Hubble telescope, but this one was launched in 1990 and is still in operation. It has sent us amazing photo’s and info from deep space which was was a huge help in mapping the universe.
Over a 95% of the scientist working in the field consider global warming a fact. These are scientists form different nations, races, believes, sex and political preferences. You can’t accuse them of bias. If the fast majority of studies all come to the same conclusion then you have to except it as truth. If you like it or not.
About the forum of Hubpages. I don’t think the majority of the people are left wing. I don’t know, I don’t think things are that black and white. Last election in Europe for example the greens won lots of seats in parliament. And both traditional left and right lost a lot. People who voted on the green party come from both the left and the right. Also Nationalism and Populism is on the rise a concept that’s seen in Europe as a threat as we still remember the consequences of these two forces.
So that’s why it is interesting to hear different opinions from people in the US. I might not agree with them all. But that’s live, it would be boring if we had all the same opinion.(and dangerous). So that’s why I try to listen and imagine why people are saying what they are saying and try to imagine their background and how they formed their opinion.
Hi Peter....Yes, you were right to be confused. The space shuttle was actually the Challenger. Thanks for bringing it up.
As for the 95% of scientists, that number is meaningless. What you do not know is that the IPCC will not secure grant money for scientists who have differing opinions from them. They, through NASA, will only recognize articles from scientists to whom they have given Grant money and who are happy to oblige with their false models and conduct research that will agree with their models, even if said research is garbage. That is what my rocket science friend was referring to, among other things.
Climate change is big business and money. Government entities have a big stake in that money. Al Gore became exceedingly rich (more than he was before) because of his participation in creating fear about global warming, from his now debunked movie.
Yet all scientists need grant money to fund their research; however, those scientist who are too principled to deny what they have discovered and who will not follow the status quo have a hard time of it. Their voices are suppressed and their research languishes.
Consequently, the (so-called) 95% belongs only to scientists who have been given big grant money to agree with the IPCC. It's basically a made up number as it leaves out all opposing scientific voices.
But anyway, you have very different views. Thank you for your response. It's refreshing to hear a polite voice. And yes, HP has many voices. What I am saying is that Hubpages, the organization, tends to be PC.
You're blaming HP for being too PC? Do you think they're prejudiced in favor of the left? Care to expand on your opinion? I'm sure you can provide a link to a reputable site where it explains who is paying the scientists to provide fake GW evidence.
I seriously doubt you can provide such, but the onus is on you now, SD.
Yes, you are quite fond of asking for links and then ignoring them entirely so that you can then make a comment which you and your friends find remarkably funny and clever, but which, frankly, most others' find repetitive and uninteresting. (No offence).
So, Randy, which source would you actually believe? Do you really believe NASA or the IPCC would provide any such link countering their opinion? I provided a source in the form of a book, from a prestigious scholar, to Peter (in my very first comment) if you care to read said book, which I am sure you do not. But for the sake of thoroughness (even though I know you do not actually care about the answer) here is a link to the author I quoted:
https://www.climatescienceinternational … amp;id=394
As for HP being PC, of course they are. Many conservatives here have been contacted about their articles because of complaints from the left. Even I had four questions removed back when we had Q & A. One of the questions was about Obama's Iran Deal. Apparently, I was not even allowed to ask a question about what people thought about it. HP banned it before it hit the light of day.
Okay, now here's the part where you get to make more of your predictable responses. Have fun.
Here's a link about your source for info, SD. check out the rating.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/internat … coalition/
Was this what you predicted I'd do?
Randy, don't take this as an informed shot at your link. I was simply struck by the possible irony of your site's rating rationale.
Also, I didn't dig any deeper. There may be no possible irony at all. Mediabiaschecker may be a sterling source, but . .
Here is their explanation of their offered psuedoscience rating:
"Overall, we rate the ICSC a Quackery level pseudoscience organization based on routinely denying human impact on climate change, which differs from the consensus of climate scientists.
It looks like they are calling them quacks because they disagree with the very contention they are contesting. In other words, they aren't believable because they aren't believers?
It was just a thought bud. Your link may be credible. Their logic just seems skewed to me.
The problem with media bias / fact check is that it is an amateurish website, which borrows much of it's information from Wikipedia and which is not credible when all is said and done. College students are not even allowed to use Wikipedia, much less media bias as a source, because said sites lack accuracy, and may also contain some bias.
To be clear, I am not saying there is no climate change. The earth is constantly changing. What I am saying is that the models from the IPCC are inaccurate, that global warming is big business, and that scientists who may have differing opinions are never heard. Indeed, their voices are suppressed.
And the link you provided was no better. You see what I mean, anyone can find a site which agrees with their opinion.
And why would whoever suppress voices when they're correct? Are you like some who envision a vast worldwide conspiracy among the leading scientists around the world?
And how would such a plan be kept quiet among the thousands of scientists? What is their reason for doing so, and who pays them for their suppression of facts? And who is behind all this, Hillary?
Who pays for suppression of facts? Are you joking? The world of academia does not work that way. Scientists get grant money for their research. What part of that sentence do you not understand? If academia does not agree with a professor's line of research (particularly in the area of climate change) they get no government money to do research and anything they may try to publish is suppressed. That is how it works in academia!!
Anyway, my brother, who was a professor and who is now a Dean of a private college recommended the book written by Dr. Carter, whom I cited to you. There may be better books out there. All I know is that if my friends' acquaintance who, yes, happens to be a rocket scientist had told NASA (as I explained to Peter days ago) that they should absolutely not launch the Challenger because it was not safe to do so (NASA had asked his opinion) but NASA did so anyway because they were "invested (think money)" and then the Challenger blew up into a million pieces, then I am likely to believe the same rocket scientist who has reviewed the graphs from the IPCC and found then to be, in his words "garbage." Yes! I certainly believe him.
As for your fact check site, it is also garbage. Any moron can see that. That being said, I am happy to look further into the ICSC to find out more about them. But as to Don's assertion, I hardly think that a $45,000 dollar donation makes them corrupt when Gore, in fact, has made millions promoting a lie----for which he won a Nobel Peace Prize. According to Al Gore, we should all have been underwater and quite dead by now.
But believe what you want. I don't think you can understand what I am saying. You may simply not be acquainted with the way academia works and therefore naively believe that nobody's speech is suppressed. Wow. Amazing that you really don't know about that. Good luck to you, Randy. No point in my hitting my head against a brick wall trying to explain these things to you. I gave it the ole' college try.
But you are right about one thing. Anyone can bend facts. The media and academia does that at least 92 to 98% of the time. As for your bringing up Hillary, this post isn't about her. I should think you would have known that as well. Seriously, dude.
You aren't the only person who knows a rocket scientist, SD, But what rocket science has to do with climate change is beyond me. The reason I used the link I did was to show you anyone can link to any kind of site.
Apparently you're not academically inclined to research the sites your using. Also, if you truly believe people who are ruining the environment are giving money to a site which promotes their agenda for the hell of it makes me wonder just how academically challenged you are.
A link to your claim of the media and academia bending facts 92 to 98% would be helpful. I doubt seriously you can prove it without using a suspect site.
Hold on. Let me get this right. You provide a link to a site funded by the oil, gas and tobacco industry (a site which includes an advisor who owns five mining companies) and offer it as a reliable source of information about climate change. Then when someone points out the site is not a reliable source, you are critical of the site they link to on the grounds that it looks amateurish?
How does any reasonable person get to the point where that makes sense?
In what universe is a site about climate change funded by the oil, gas and tobacco industry (you know, those bastions of truth-telling) more reliable than another site, on the grounds that the other site looks "amateurish"?
Wikipedia is a general interest media site. I have worked with many college students who use Wikipedia because it has confirmed citations that go to credible sources.
Yes, some profs don't like Wikipedia as an original source, anymore than they like Fox News or MSNBC as a source. But it is a more credible starting point for research than Fox News or MSNBC.
In reality, many people on the right and left dispute all sources of information as having issues with bias and credibility when they don't fit their personal opinons.
But we can believe Wikipedia's editors and citations much more easily than Russia Times, which someone else posted on here.
I agree that Wikipedia is a general interest site. The college students I've known, including my son, have mentioned to me that their professors did not allow any student to use Wikipedia. However, I agree that it can have useful citations. In fact, it does have information on Dr. Robert. M. Carter, who wrote the book my brother recommended to me: Climate: The Counter-Consensus - A Palaeoclimatologist Speaks
However, this topic I brought up with Peter (originally) is not a general interest topic per se in that little is known about ICSC or counter-consensus. In fact, I was not even trying to point out that particular organization because I really don't know anything about it. (I think it's based in Australia...) Rather, I was simply providing Randy with a link that listed a few of Dr. Carter's credentials. In fact, Wikipedia does not even list ICSC....well, it does, but it lists it as a shopping network or something.
Consequently, the fact check site Randy used likely picked up typical negatives about "climate deniers" from Google. And, sorry, but I maintain that the site Randy used is "amateurish." I did not say that to be offensive; only said it because it's true. All you have to do is look at it to know.
Anyhoo.....the topic should probably be explored in another forum or an article, one day down the road.... I only brought it up because someone addressed it briefly, early on. It's not a subject I dwell on, but it is interesting.
I understand your point about the fact check site and did not think it was offensive. I was only referring to how people including students use Wikipedia as a starting point for research. Thanks, SD.
SD, I provided the site BECAUSE it, like your linked site, is also suspect. Simply showing you--which you apparently didn't get the hint--you need to research any site you haven't already vetted.
This seems to be a problem with the right most of the time....but I suppose it is difficult for them to find credible sites to support their opinions.
CEO, entrepreneur, and candidate Andrew Yang talks about how the changing economy will affect American workers and why he proposes a universal basic income.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-yan … nstration/
That's pretty radical to me. However, if workers keep being replaced by automation, I don't see much alternative. I'm not willing to vote for that at this point.
Yang talks about how the recipients will spend the money locally and build business and the economy. At the same time, critics complain that people are spending money online so legislatures are enacting sales taxes on internet sales. One of the reasons people are buying online is purchasing things they can't buy locally. Even big box stores like WalMart and Home Depot stock lots of items, but their selections are limited. When you look at the big picture, I'm not sure that he is correct. It may be just another wet dream like the trickle-down theory.
Any one of those you listed has more honesty and integrity than the criminal Trump. I'll wait to see who comes out on top.
I would think the biggest question for a Democrat would be is the DNC going to pick who they want to run and subvert the process liked it did in the 2016 election cycle.
I'm also concerned that Trump has invited foreign spies to subvert our election like they did in 2016.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/ … on-1362788
Then again, he may just be saying it because he wants the Democrats to impeach him and rile up his base.
I'd agree Trump was too flippant with his comments. I didn't see them as an invitation. But people will disagree.
I was horrified that Trump was the nominee but I was also pleased to see the powers that be in the RNC did not go down the path the DNC went down to get the nominee they wanted pushed forward.
So it's not an invitation. Isn't that frightening to you though? He would listen? It indicates somebody who doesn't understand the magnitude of the statement. This is precisely the criticism that's been leveled against him and his own family. They've been worked by foreign interests.
Did you see his latest foreign faux pas today in which he said he would accept dirt from a foreign power on a political opponent?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … ar-AACPqlk
Yes, sadly, I did. Fortunately, even some Republicans have found what's left of their courage and come out against him.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/ … ks-1364220
But it will soon be forgotten when he starts his fake war with Iran.
Couldn't resist, the point that I have attempted to make in this discussion reminds me of a few choice lines from the 1987 film "The Untouchables". Many of you probably have seen it.
Kevin Costner, playing as Eliot Ness forms a squad committed to bringing Al Capone to justice in early 1930's Chicago. When recruiting a member of the team played by Sean Connery, the skeptical recruit ask Mr. Ness " Are you serious, DO YOU ReaLLY WANT HIM"?
I ask the proposed Democratic nominees the same question, are you committed to the goal of reducing the influence of money in Washington, for example,with an uncompromising integrity that won't be bought off or co-opted? So, how many are REALLY serious?
Washington Governor Jay Inside talks about his signature issue, climate change.
I am not the Warren fan many seem to be PrettyPanther, but her "I have a plan for that . . . " mantra, combined with the folks at the bottom of your list that don't have a chance, prompt a question.
Do you think voters are looking for, (or need), a detailed "plan" for every problem--which they could pick and choose from to like or dislike--or would a concept candidate like Roosevelt or Reagan that would offer a general vision be more appealing to voters?
I don't mean to compare Biden to Roosevelt or Reagan but in the context of that question, I would see him as the "vision" candidate vs. Warren's menu of "plans" candidate. (I would also endorse that Biden/Harris idea as a good one)
As a stark example of what I mean . . . Trump. He didn't draw support for his "detailed plans," he won because of the "vision" he offered voters. Regardless of whether it was a great or disastrous vision - it was the vision that drew the votes.
I think this should also be the direction of the Democrats. I don't think they are going to get the Independent voters they need with detailed plans, I think it will be the vision for the direction of our country that will draw that voter.
I think the Democrat primary, with every candidate trying to 'out-Left', (as in offering more free stuff), the other candidates will hurt the party in the run-up to the election.
Note: If you really like Warren now, you should at least take a look at her own, (vs. media pundits), policy proposals and explanations. I think you might find a couple of problem areas.
GA, great point.
I don't know if you're hinting at this, but perhaps you're suggesting that voters aren't smart enough to cull through plans or to understand detailed policy statements.
We're in an era of Twitter. Voters want their party platform in a 140 character sound bite and anything more than that, they don't have time for, don't comprehend, or don't want to comprehend.
To me, it suggests we're in a rather sad place. Though, to be honest, voters have never really been that smart overall.
However, you are very correct about the mistake Democrats make by assuming that being eggheads is the way to appeal to people. Since Dems tend to be the more intellectual party, this can be a mistake - Dems are often accused of talking over "regular" Americans and many of their candidates have seemingly lost because of it (Dukakis comes to mind). Aside from being a woman, this may be the reason people turn away from Warren. She can't focus on policy. She has to focus on her vision.
Trump didn't articulate much a plan or a platform. He focused on a vision and a few key issues, like border security. People understood it and those it appealed to voted for him. None of the other stuff mattered.
I wasn't hinting or insinuating anything Crankalicious. I think the detailed nuts and bolts approach might be fine for attracting a like-minded base, but relative to Independents as a segment of voters, I think it is a vision that they are looking for first, then they may be interested in the "plan" to fulfill that vision, but selling them on the vision first is going to be the clincher - I think.
I think the Democrats are thinking all 'sensible' people agree with their plans. I think that misses the big picture.
The problem with "visions" GA, is that its translates to mumbo-jumbo once these guys take office. Has Trump's vision thing really translated into a form of reality once he took office, I think not.
This Vision thing has deteriorated into more promises made and not kept.
I prefer that anyone who wants to be my leader focuses on educating voters rather than just making them swoon.
While Warren is not perfect, in my opinion she is better than the others in regard to addressing the questions of the day that I consider most important.
I will take my chances with a candidate who is novel and exciting firing up the base over the same old bromides, which I still believe will allow Trump to win by default.
If Bernie were the nominee in 2016, he would have defeated Donald Trump.
I will add a couple of things in response to GA.
First, Warren has a vision that she has been working on consistently for many years: an America that works for all Americans, not just those who can buy influence and power.
Second, because she has had that vision for so long, and she is an experienced policy wonk, she has given a lot of thought to how to implement that vision. A vision only works if you take action to move it forward.
Now, all that said, I have no illusions about her ability to fully enact all of those policies. Congress will undoubtedly push back against her more liberal ideas. Even so, I can be confident that we would have a president who will fight for all Americans and not just cater to the wealthy few.
But, my main point is that, not only does she have a vision that has been consistent over time, she has plans to back it up. I see that as a huge strength.
I think that is 20/20, Panther, no pun intended
You are right, Congress can and will be an impediment, but it preferable to having a President that won't even try. The dislodge the powerful from their perch has never been easy.
If we only look at the wording of Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act we find enough to dismiss her as a candidate. It is intended to make people think she cares about the everyday person, but thinking it through sheds a different light on how it is more government intrusion into people's lives in order to make people like her the power-brokers.
So, who are people like her? They want complete control over citizen's lives/monies/health while living lives that are far different from everyday people's. They want the government to be able to give their own associated private sector businesses our tax dollars in the form of subsidies and grants.
It's not a matter of reading between the lines, it is one of understanding their private definitions of phrasings. Warren says companies are creating an atmosphere of failure for themselves while at the same time complaining that they make too much money. It is stunning that her supporters do not examine her words more carefully so they can connect dots to what historical record reveals about what happens to everyday people under the hand of socialistic governments.
A little food for thought helping people realize there is more to the picture than they are being told can be found: https://www.investors.com/politics/edit … lionaires/
There's that dog whistle again: socialism.
Here's the last line of that article: "But the idea that the "billionaire class" opposes all that is good in this country and that they must be defeated to get anything done is nothing more than sophomoric political posturing."
That's not what is being said and nobody is talking about socialism. What we are talking about is reasonable government regulation to keep the wealthy from controlling every aspect of society through money. We're usually debating how much is too much and how much is too little. Too little seems to be Plutocracy while too much is always socialism.
I'm just tired of that dog whistle. You don't want socialism? Let's get rid of Medicare and make the Police and the Fire Department private entities, among other things. When Republicans don't like some government regulation, they scream socialism without even remotely understanding what it means or how it applies to government.
We're just arguing about an appropriate level of government regulation and on what. Obama was labelled a socialist. He was no such thing. Clinton was labelled a socialist. Also no such thing.
The word "socialist" is being used much like the word "communist" in the 1950s.
My unfamiliarity with Warren is showing. I have never perceived her as having a vision for America, I have always left contemplation of her with the thought that she has a plan.
I also don't have a problem with all her plans. I recall thinking well of her ideas for addressing Wall Street and Big Business a few years back.
I suppose vision means different things to different folks. Or, maybe I was less than clear on want I meant. *shrug
Think of what you know about Reagan or Roosevelt. Reagan didn't campaign on details and plans. He campaigned on a vision first and then offered ideas on how to achieve that vision.
His vision was to restore American economic prosperity and military prowess. Then he spoke of ideas on how to do that.
Roosevelt's vision was “a new deal for the American people.” Hope for an economically and natural disaster, (the draughts), battered population.
Trump also offered a vision - Make America Great Again. His only "plans" were broad-brush promises.
What would you say Warren has declared as her vision for America? Which of her "plans for that" will symbolize a vision to non-Warren or non-Democrat voters?
I don't mean to be focusing just on Warren, but her presentation of "having a Plan for that" illustrates the point I am trying to make.
I think that if you grabbed 10 people off the street and asked about Roosevelt or Reagan's vision for America you would get a consensus close to what the candidates promoted. I don't think you would get a similar consensus with Warren's campaign.
You might get a consensus on her plans to address different problems but I don't think you would find a singular vision for America.
Wasn't Reagan involved in the Iran Contra thing? Or was that Walker Bush? I won't look it up because you will, Gus!
I'm sure you have a point in there somewhere Randy. Help me out, I don't want to jump to the wrong conclusion.
You mentioned Reagan had vision, Gus. In what manner?
I just don't see it the same way you do. Warren has a vision for structural change in America, so that government works for everyone, not just the privileged few.
I don't have a problem with that PrettyPanther. I want a car designer - you want a mechanic.
Except I think I'm getting both. I acknowledge you don't see it that way.
It is a fuzzy hard to define concept PrettyPanther. Although my point applies to Warren, I didn't intend for her to be the sole target of it, or for that point to turn into a debate about whether she does or doesn't present a "vision" for America.
I also understand that you do see her platform as a vision. No worries, like Baskin-Robbins, there is a flavor for all of us.
Panther speaks for me as well, so that is at least 2 of us, GA. Could you elaborate on the analogy regarding car designer verses mechanic?
Hi Cred. My analogy was intended to define a difference between an idea and the mechanics that make it real.
Let me try another; Kennedy's Moon program. Remember how he projected the idea and then provided the support for the people that would make it happen? He sold the idea to the public as a symbol and let the "mechanics" make it real.
If it were Warren, I can see her trying to sell the people on going to the moon with her 22 plans to develop the rockets, the capsule, the lander, etc. etc.
I don't think that approach would have the public support Kenedy's "vision" did.
GA, even when removing Kennedy's martyrdom from the equation, my opinion of him is much like the one you have for Reagan.
How much more convincing Kennedy's pledge would have been if he were to have outlined Project Gemini or Apollo as part and parcel of his challenge? At a time when rocket boosters were exploding on their pads, it was a risky and daring challenge based on a lot of faith in American daring do and knowhow. Anyone at the time would have told you that such a pledge was risky at best.
The big picture when supported by details as to how the grand vision can and will be accomplished beyond mere words and promises is the best of both worlds.
Neither approach has to exclude the other, I just think that both the visions and the details as to how we get from here to there adds credibility and seriousness to what otherwise would be just another feel-good empty promise.
i am as much interested in the mechanics needed to bring a idea to reality as I am of the idea itself.
I agree with you Cred, but what sells you first, the vision of the moon landing, or the details of how the exploding boosters will be fixed?
I have not been intending to say the details aren't important. If you want to sell me a pie-in-the-sky you are going to have to give me the details to convince me you can produce.
Remember, my point has been that we are speaking of a mass of general voters of all stripes from all across our nation.
I remain convinced that a candidate presenting a picture of their idea of the nation will be the more successful vote-getter.
And you will be the voter that Warren et al will quickly capture. Do you suppose there are enough of you, without the Independents or disgusted Republicans, to provide the winning vote?
The majority of voters chose a Democrat in 2016. It won't take much of a swing to win in 2020. I am in no way saying it will be easy or is a foregone conclusion, but I've heard quite a few Trump voters say they would have voted for Bernie over Trump and he is as liberal or more so than Warren.
I agree it won't take much of a change. My discussion was about who will capture that swing. I don't think it will be the Warrens or Betos.
Look to your Bernie thought. He didn't run on a detailed plan for every problem, he ran on a vision. His vision did include ideas and details, but it was a vision for America first, plans and details second.
This puzzles me, as I have heard a vision from Warren for years, and actual plans only recently. I also think her stump speeches, as much as I have heard, are about the vision, with some reference to the plans. I am confused by your description of her as it conflicts with what I see and hear with my own eyes and ears
I think you've brought out some good points, GA. If Warren loses, it may be because she is too specific. I really liked her until she started detailing some of her proposals, some of which are too radical to my liking. I don't think this country can afford socialism, including hers, and I darned sure don't want to have to pay for any mistakes of my great-grandpappy's generation (We make enough of our own today). I don't give a dang what the bible says about "the sins of the fathers...."
So, a candidate who provides little or no detail about how they would implement a vision is preferable to one who does? This makes little sense to me. A vision is necessary, but without a plan it goes nowhere. Also, any plan out forth by a candidate must pass muster with Congress, which means the details will almost certainly change, if implemented at all.
I appreciate a candidate willing to put her cards in the table, knowing they will be picked apart. I believe her more radical ideas will not be implemented anyway, but at least she is clear about what she would like to see for the future.
Oh lordy, lordy . . . I have really painted myself into a corner here, haven't I?
I thought it was such a simple concept; a policy wonk approach with 22 3-ring binders of plan details, going through each one to lure voters to his table, vs an orator and a whiteboard outlining the path to a vision at another table.
What if both want the same America and are right and honest in their presentation to voters. And what if the audience around those tables will be bombarded with their message for 18 months.
As a general mass of voters, I think the policy wonks and political junkies like us are a small majority. I think the majority of voters just want a candidate they can trust that presents a vision that they like.
Sure the details matter. Many in that mentioned majority will want to know how the candidate will get to the envisioned America, but I think those thoughts will be secondary to the first thought of who they like.
Now, If I repeat that I was only offering an observation of a concept and not condemning your girl Warren, (even though I disagree with your view of her), will you let me out of this corner? ;-)
Well, that reply was to Mizbejabbers....
I agree with your basic premise that voters will respond better to a well articulated vision than to detailed policy positions. I just think Warren has been sharing her vision for years and will continue to do so.
And she is not my girl. She is s an accomplished woman with a vision and a plan. ;-) Just like your boy Reagan. I think you're out of that corner but stepping right into another. Lol
Nope, I hope side-stepped that other one you are thinking of. I guess Randy will let me know.
Dammit Gus, I have t agree with Pretty. Warren has long had a vision. You may not agree with it....but still. At any rate, I think all of the left candidates have a vision of Donnie being indicted after he loses the election.
It's good to be arbiter....
I agree with you MizBejabbers, the devil was in the details for me too.
Her Accountable Capitalism Act was a major stumbling block for me, and then when she jumped on the 'Reparations' train she lost me completely.
Right after the 2008 crash, I liked her ideas for going after the bad-acting Big Boys, but I think that was a different Warren than the one of today that supports the concept of reparations.
But wait . . . As noted to PrettyPanther, I don't really mean to be bashing her. I think she is more qualified than many of her competitors. That she isn't my cup of tea is beside the point of my original comment.
I've liked her in the past. I think she is qualified and would make a good president if her radical ideas can be held at bay. I worry about Biden. Normally I wouldn't worry about someone's age (I'm up there too you know) but I've seen some slowness on his part during public appearances. I would not want another Reagan situation. I'm not Reagan bashing, just expressing concern because Reagan ended up with Alzheimers with Nancy in charge. However, Biden's wife seems to be a more educated and competent and less vain person than Nancy. But it is never good when an unelected person has to take over for an elected official.
Which radical ideas are those MizBejabbers? HealthCARE for ALL? forcing wealthy elitists like Steve "Weasel" Mnuchin to start paying taxes? Holding financial institutions accountable for GOUGING interest rates and gambling with our money? Protecting Social Security and Medicare? Enforcing Women's Rights? Mitigating the power of large corporations? Almost ALL Progressive Dems are fighting for ALL the above and there's nothing radical about any of it:
If you're worried about "RADICAL", we'd have to assume that you'd never even consider voting for a soon to be IMPRISONED worm like Bozo Trump:
Many Trump supporters believe GW is a conspiracy of all the most prestigious scientists across the globe faking the phenomena. Sad but true...
Yes it's a sad thing. But to doubt and discredit science and knoledge is a classic strategy. Suddenly NASA who brought people to the moon is not trustworthy any more!!!
Ah! We've a hoax-monger among us. So glad to make the acquaintance of yet another hoax-monger. Cheerio, old chap.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstei … f610833f9f
I thought you were sure it is a hoax, Wes? Change your mind?
Oh sorry, apparently when we have to include all scientists and not just the climatologists, it's only 80%. Hardly hoaxy numbers, as you claim, but you keep believing Trump. It's not like he has a history of fraud or lying, after all
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2 … dcdf561157
The belief that climate change is a hoax is stupidity at its finest. Yes, if you believe climate change is a hoax and the scientists have created a grand conspiracy, you are a moron.
However, if you want to dispute that the solutions to climate change may not necessarily involve obliterating all fossil fuels or putting solar panels on every building in the U.S. or whatever other scheme some on the left cook up as the "solution", then that's a different story.
Those on the right who are sensible and see climate change as a real threat are likely to have a solution that involves far more private solutions than government solutions. That's an argument to have.
Arguing about the actual legitimacy of climate change, climate science, and global warming... stupid.
lol: WoW: If there were any "SENSIBLE" politicians on the right Clowny McTrump would be dressed in prison orange right now: Are you serious? Now we know one main reason WHY communist russian loving republicans got CRUSHED in 2018 and will be CRUSHED again in 2020: Where did you get that notion? Fox Fake Channel? perhaps you could name just one "SENSIBLE" politician on the right and what he or she proposes as a solution to the catastrophic damaging effects of climate change and is his or her idea more logical and feasible and effective than the progressive lefts: MORE fossil fuel burning? is that the communist russian loving republican solution?
Just remember, when anything is "PRIVATIZED" it means "PROFIT" is a priority and always comes first for these greedy slugs before anything else:
Progressive Dems solution is REAL and Tangible and it includes "Wind and Solar" as PILLARS of their plan to try and stave off the impending disaster as our only habitable planet burns into an ember:
Well said Crakalicious. I think your determination of what the real discussion should be is on the mark.
lol, okay GA, what sensible solution has any Communist Russian Republican in Congress proposed recently to mitigate the DESTRUCTIVE Detrimental Impact of Climate Change? We all know short timer delusion prone Clowny McTrump believes it's a HOAX by China but what else is new in his disturbed little mind?:
I can't seem to find a single solitary idea from the alt right nationalists: Perhaps it's because the fossil fuel industry sems to CONTROL "Mutt" McConnell, Marco Rubio, "Mutt" Romney etc:
Hi Jake. I see you are still true to form.
Well GA, everyone knows I'm always Blunt, to the POINT, have FACTS in hand and yes, true to form: But I still haven't seen you provide us with a single legitimate idea to mitigate the severely damaging impact of climate change proposed by any Communist Russian Loving Republican and you know WHY? Because they have none and could care less about saving our planet just like they could care less about our HealthCARE or anything else that enhances our quality of life:
You will however get a plethora of ideas, concepts and plans to SAVE our ONLY habitable planet and cover ALL Americans will health insurance from Progressive Dems:
Hi Jake, do you have an early favorite among the Democratic candidates? I would enjoy hearing your perspective on the candidates, without mention of that other guy. ;-)
Jake my comment to Crankilicious was about what the real discussion, (argument?), about climate change should be; not whether it was real or a hoax, but about what solutions should be considered.
I didn't pick a side about whether it is real or a hoax, and I didn't promote one side's "solutions" over the others. You have done both.
However, I will join you on the side that believes climate change is real, but, with the caveat that I do not think the outline of The Green New Deal is a realistic option, I will leave you to your own thoughts of the primary cause and best solutions.
GA, I understand what you said, but my POINT is that Communist Russian Loving Republicans in Congress and Clowny McTrump have no SOLUTIONS to mitigate impending and current devastating effects of climate change, at least I haven't heard of any, perhaps they're a little too busy committing CRIMES themselves like Aiding and Abetting the soon to be imprisoned orange FELON in our oval office and that's just one more reason WHY republicans will be decimated once again in 2020:
We ALL know most of the Progressive Democratic ideas and plans which include essential Wind, Solar etc, but I still haven't seen you post anything from CONservatives:
RECENT Poll: ******* Biden 53% Clowny McTrump 40%
I find it funny that when politicians proposed Green New Deal, Medicare for All, etc, many people said Oh, that's a noble goal, that sounds good, I agree with many of those points BUT where is the money coming from? Where is the plan? There's nothing to back it up and so on.
But a candidate presents plans for almost all of his/her proposed ideas then it is too much.
But I agree, she should concentrate in a general message, most people are like that. Short attention span is a general characteristic of the american voters.
Actually, you're just parroting a far right nationalist FOX Fake News style "Talking Point" because is REALITY, if you listen to the Progressive Dems you'll understand that almost all of them have a comprehensive, rock solid plan to INSURE ALL Americans which is a right:
Essentially, taxes are raised but Americans will no longer be required to pay current health insurance premiums and or deductibles so we should actually save money: HIGHER or INITIAL taxes on those greedy elitists who need to get off their lazy rear ends and start paying taxes is also a way to finance a portion of the universal plans:
Nancy "POWERHOUSE" Pelosi and Progressive Dems will ensure there is NO MORE FREE STUFF for obese wealthy slobs like soon to be jailed Steve "Weasel" Mnuchin:
You know it's bad for Jake when he's accusing one of the more liberal posters here of parroting Fox News stories.
Well Valeant, I guess if consider yours truly stating FACTS is bad, then so be it: Can you identify any part of my previous comment that isn't rooted in FACT? Probably not:
You know what's really BAD? A person who claims to be a PROGRESSIVE Dem but doesn't understand the PLAN(S) to cover ALL Americans with critically important health insurance because most of the Democratic Candidates have discussed it unlike repugnantkins who are desperately trying to DESTROY our healthcare system and doing a pretty good job of it so far: Or bad is claiming somehow Senator warren has "RADICAL Ideas" which is simply nonsense: I see both of these views here on this alt right sight:
But anyway, Biden 53% Clowny McTrump 40% which means if Satan intervenes on his behalf and he actually makes it to the 2020 election without getting fitted for prison orange, Clowny will swiftly be reduced to that stuff they cover the ground with at the circus when the monkeys come out and perform: Not any better for the republican senate which will be DECIMATED as well:
Jack don't panic. Trump won't win. According to my view....
I think Trump was uber surprised when he won the elections. As the whole election campaign was used to promote his brand: Trump. He never wanted to actually win it, as he had no clue what to do as a president. He only wanted to collect money for his company through an ellection campaign model..
I don't think he liked the last 4 years, if he is honest with himself. He has already done what he liked to do. Make huge tax cuts for the rich and make the gap between poor and rich bigger, eliminating the middle class.
Anyway, I think he wants to go back and run his own company. He will not go full heartedly into the next campaign. Off course he will blame it on the media etc. etc. But he will lose in the end. Or he will put someone else forward on his behalf, (if such a thing is possible)
So don't worry to much. And look positive towards the change that will come after Trump. As he opened the political spectrum. If extreme right can win a president so can progressive left. The time of the grey politician is over (for good or for bad.)
"The time of the grey politician is over (for good or for bad.)"
That is a thought worth contemplation PrettyPanther. And I say that seriously.
Could it mean the time of the 'candidate for all', or could it mean the politics-as-usual candidate?
Whatever it could mean I think it is a very beneficial thought to pursue.
Whether you intended it to be a deep observation or not, for me, you have sparked a direction to pursue for an interesting perspective that hasn't been raised before.
It's on you Ms. I will start a whole new thread, and as the instigator, you are obliged to participate. ;-)
I'm not sure if it is a positive thing.
“May you live in interesting times” is a Chinese curse and for good reason.
I will participate but I cannot take credit for the germination of the idea. That was peterstreep. :-)
Biden 53% Trump 40%: The ONLY panic I see is written all over Clowny McTrump's beady little corrupt eyes: If he resigns he's INDICTED by over 1,000 former prosecutors, if he tries desperately to remain in our oval office he's IMPEACHED and Progressive Dems DESTROY him and win perhaps a VETO Proof Majority in the senate:
Donald Boy is in a LOSE LOSE LOSE position and he knows it, hence the beads of smelly sweat dripping down his orange forehead: Even if SATAN intervened to get him to the 2020 election everyone already knows the little sniveling coward that he is, destined for Sing Sing to share a dirty cell with CLOBBERER, the rather large and hefty muscle man who despises crumbs who tell followers to vote for a child molester:
Everyone knows Trump and everyone knows Biden and HERE'S the HORRIFYING Truth for Donny: Biden 53% Trump 40%: Those numbers will NEVER be moved significantly: Many other Dems are POUNDING Donny in the POLLS as well: Maybe that's WHY he's already spending MILLIONS on social media in his panic tizzy fit but it will never work, the ONLY chance Donny BOy has is if Vladimir Putin is successful in changing votes again in his favor:
It would be easy. First off, Mnuchin isn't a weasel. Second, Islandbites was basically saying damned if you do, damned if you don't when it comes to general messaging versus having a specific plan. You read that and mention Fox News in the same sentence. You went off for no reason, which was completely unnecessary based on the substance of her post. That's why I mocked what you wrote.
. . . and Trump comes marching in . . .
She may have that vision Randy, and other folks may readily see it.
Maybe a little background will lessen the impression I am bashing Warren.
My initial perceptions were formed, (as mentioned), back in the 'post-crash' days when she was in the news for her ideas for needed actions. I then looked a little deeper into her plans, (and her history), and liked her ideas.
At this point, my perception of her was of a woman with a plan, not a vision, (*sigh this "vision" thing is getting to be a chore), but that isn't a bad thing - because I wasn't thinking in terms of "vision" then.
Then come her actions in the run-up to announcing her candidacy; plans, it was all about plans. She has a solution for this and a solution for that. We were bombarded with her plans.
So far, I have the same perceptions from her campaigning. She is talking about all the pieces of the puzzle--but not of the picture those pieces create.
Others obviously see her method as presenting a vision. I can't argue that. We all form our own perceptions. Mine is just different.
I see her presentation as that of a mechanic or builder - not an architect.
I think the president should present the vision of an architect. That view may or may not be a majority among voters, but I don't think I am completely alone in that thought.
That is why I think the successful candidate will be the one that presents a vision to the voters. That has been my point all along. So if you think Warren is presenting a vision, then good for her. You should hope that she finds more voters with your perception than mine.
Mayor Pete Buttgieg has managed to crack the top five in Iowa. I like his calm, intelligent demeanor and his ability to communicate about human decency, courage, and caring for othets. GA's "vision"?
You did it again PrettyPanther, sent me down a rabbit hole of links for almost two hours.
I like this guy. And yes, I think his presentation is more of a visionary one than Warren's.
I really liked his answer, (in his Fox Townhall appearance), on the issue of late-term abortion.
First, I do not mean to turn this into another abortion discussion. My point is about Mayor Pete--how he answers this tough question--not whether his answer is right or wrong, (even though I think his answer has merit).
Check out his town hall answer, starting at the nine-minute mark.
Trump kicked off his campaign in Florida today. At what point do we start putting the odds down on which of his campaign staff get indicted after the election?
Joe Biden. The "No Change" candidate?
Speaking to a room full of wealthy donors:
“Truth of the matter is, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done,” Biden said. “We can disagree in the margins. But the truth of the matter is, it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living would change. Nothing would fundamentally change,” he said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … e-the-rich
I can tell you, this is not playing well with the liberal Democratic base. How does it sound to the rest of you?
I don't think that he "gets it". After 4 years of Trump, and a status quo that ultimately has most of us spiraling downward nothing needs to change? He is already sucking up to warmed over Republicans and wishy-washy moderates. Definitely not ready for prime time....
Just more proof that this is still an Establishment VS. Trump/America campaign.
Whoever the Democrats come up with, they will give a bunch of false promises, and if elected, move politics in D.C. right back to selling out the American people 'full speed ahead'.
Trade negotiations would be reversed, the manufacturing jobs would again be heading overseas at breakneck speed, they would abolish ICE and restrict Border Patrol and the only thing being an American Citizen would be good for is paying taxes to support the tens of millions pouring in who are not.
2020 will still be about:
America the Nation (Trump) VS. the UN Global Initiative (Dem) - a world without borders and without the freedoms we Americans have long taken for granted.
But of course, the majority will be voting what is going on with their Wallets. While a minority will be voting on behalf of one extremist political view or another (AKA - Party fanaticism).
The amount of voters who actually recognize this is a battle to preserve America rather than allowing it to dissolve into the greater global international body, giving up its sovereignty and right to self-rule are few in number.
Biden's remarks were specific to his wealthy donors and had nothing at all to do with the multiple topics mentioned in your response.
Considering the economy did just fine under Obama, saying that's going to be a strike against any Democratic candidate is a joke. The deficit always get better under a Democrat. Job growth had 75 straight months of growth under Obama. The stock market doubled. Unemployment was cut in half. Only a brainwashed, partisan hack would ignore those facts to try and claim a monopoly for the GOP on creating a strong economy.
'Preserving America as opposed to a global international body' sounds vaguely white nationalistic if you ask me.
Do a little more research on the site and you'll find who first funded the site. That should tell you something, Gus.
You are going to have to help me Randy. I couldn't find anything definitive - a mix of good and bad reviews/opinions/info.
As for who funds it; all I found was that some guy named Dave Van Zandt started the site in 2015 and says they are funded by donations and advertising.
Don't make me work for it bud. What do you know that I didn't dig deep enough to find?
ps. Remember, my original thought was just that, a thought . . . prompted by the illogic of their explanation for their rating of that other site.
Read Don's last comment, Gus. Or google the Heartland Institute who donated $45,000 to establish the site.
Still making me work, (and enjoying it too aren't you?). I backtracked Don's comments on this thread and did not find what you alluded to.
Come on bud, it's Sunday evening, a time for relaxed effort. Where is this "$45,000" funding link to mediabiasfactchecker.com? I didn't see it in "Don's last comment," or the most recent ones before his last one.
I also Googled Heartland Institute and didn't see any references to funding mediabiasfactcheck.com.
Come on Randy, the 'work week' starts on Monday, you can give me a break on a Sunday evening and just point me to the link that supports your comment.
I was referring to the site SD linked, ISCC. Not the one I posted a link to. No wonder, Gus! How many cocktails have you imbibed?
I was MIA during the Democratic debates and didn't have a a chance to comment on these forums. Those of us who follow these things closely have had some time to digest what we saw and formulate thoughts about the debates and the candidates. Here are mine:
1) I have never thought Biden would become the Democratic nominee and the first debate only bolstered that notion for me. He was not as prepared as others (especially Warren, Harris, Castro, and Buttigieg) and he came across as old (sorry, I was hoping this wouldn't be the case, but it was).
2) Warren showed why she is surging. She is well prepared and does her homework. She has had the same message for a long time and it shows. She is articulate and genuine.
3) Julian Castro did an outstanding job, though it doesn't seem to have helped him much in the polls.
4) Kamala Harris was also well prepared and her confrontation with Biden was a good move for her. Can you imagine her taking on Trump? I can, and I think a lot of voters are thinking the same thing. That said, I don't think it's really fair to judge Biden's long record by today's standards. However, he didn't handle it well, and that is not good for him.
5) Bernie was Bernie. Sorry, Bernie, your time has passed but we thank you for paving the way.
6) I think Jay Inslee is a good candidate and I like that he focuses on climate change. He doesn't seem to be getting any traction, though.
7) Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard all did fine, but nothing to make themselves stand out from the crowd.
6) POLICIES - With such an absurd format, it really isn't possible to learn much detail about each candidate's policies from a debate. My feeling about policies is that, if they are on the right side of an issue, that's good enough for me, as the implementation of policy is ultimately set by Congress anyway. I think it hurts Bernie a lot to say there isn't room for private insurance in a Medicare for All plan, though. That's too extreme even for me. Also, when it comes to policy, I'm looking for evidence that they've dived deep into important issues and have more than just a surface knowledge, and can speak thoughtfully with more than just pretty sound bites. Those qulaities can be more easily determined via in-depth interviews rather than a debate. To me, the debate format will eventually show us who is capable of beating Trump, which is the most important quality, since if they can't beat Trump nothing else will matter anyway.
Here is Bill Mah'er's monologue about the debates. He makes fun of them and it is great. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bRQAvgZ3zr8
Joe is a good egg, but think that he took his front runner status and stature for granted and got caught with his britches down. He came across more as dated and out of touch rather than old chronologically relative to the current political climate and what is needed to turn things around.
I won't expound on Warren, she is a sharp lady and I had no doubt that she would stand out in this sort of forum.
Don't know much about Castro except for the fact that I need experienced crusaders in this battle against an ever more sinister and ruthless adversary in the Republicans and rightwing.
Inslee, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Gabbard are still relative unknowns for me. I would focus on their avoiding becoming Republican (light), being too conservative or lacking the experience and/or fervent desire to engage the enemy as to alluded earlier.
The same way I would be concerned the about relevance of billionaires entering the race, the absurd idea that a Republican can capture the Democratic nomination for President.
I don't consider Bernie old, but coming off as somewhat eccentric and is no longer a viable candidate because of it. The GOP will deceive people in believing that containing the exploitive nature of Capitalism is akin to being a dyed in the wool Socialist. Bernie confirms that is what he is and I not ready to go there yet.
Going along with your thoughts, the Harris attack on Biden was below the belt. I can't blame him for political interactions 40 years ago. It was a different worl, so I focused on his record relative to the staunch segregationists that he associated with at the time. We all give people a chance to change and evolve, like I did with the late Senator Byrd of West Virginia. I still question Biden's record on a few points The big problem is that in this struggle, the moderate stance is a losing formula which in the Era of Trump amounts to no change at all.
From what I read only Sanders and Warren pose a real threat to the status quo and all stops will be made to resist the ascendency of either one of them from the "powers that be". Wall Street and the money changers are confident that the rest can be manipulated and made cozy with the status quo while they speak to all in the standard stump language. But who is really willing to go beyond the talk?
As for Bill Maher, I saw the show last Friday, thanks.......
Nope, not another of your Maher links, I still have a tab open with his Real Time videos ;-)
Since we are just exchanging views of the debates, here are mine Cred.
I was disappointed with Biden. I agree with PrettyPanther's thought; he looked and sounded old. That may not be a fair assessment, but it was my viewer's perception.
I am split on Harris, I liked her political savvy in realizing the impact of taking on Biden, but, I think her attack was too obviously calculated.
Sander's, to his credit, isn't changing his stripes. He is going all in on his Democratic Socialist platform. I think he is too far left even for the Democrat Left. Kinda like 'Dead Man Walking'.
The minor plays didn't stand out to me either. And Warren . . . I know I am picking on your champion Cred, but she and her "plans" are really starting to rub me the wrong way. But, I won't put that out there as a prognostication. It is just a personal perception. She is becoming an Ann Coulter to me. I see her - I change channels.
That is OK, regarding your perception of Warren, she has proposed ideas that I may consider a tad too far to the left even for me. But, I must err on the side of change in the direction that I seek over the stale SOS from the other candidates.
The big question for GA, who comes off as a moderate conservative, is whether he believes Warren would be better for the country than Trump.
He won't answer. That would mean taking a side and losing his status as resident fence sitter. ;-)
Well hell, I was going to answer, but now I guess I can't. I don't want to burst any bubbles.
I would be pleased to see you take a stand; no bubbles to be burst.
Sure. I fear for the future of our country but I'm fine. How about you?
I have confidence in GA, he has got an answer.
He and Promisem are moderates as one can garner from their position on things. There is such a thing, it is just hard to find in these times.
I think they were both, before he ran off the rails, attracted to Biden as the safe middle course. I think that they both are finding out that the taking of such a stance is like balancing on a tightrope, hardly a broad and spacious path. Lukewarm, as in the serious advocates of either left or right spitting out the lukewarm as unappetizing. The GOP had their choice of moderate mainstream candidates in 2016, but selected Trump?
Valeant's question would be a hard one for me Cred. Relative to picking the best choice for the country, if they were my election choices I would be in another Trump vs. Hillary dilemma. I would not vote for either.
I realize I am tossing out a Molotov cocktail, but an examination of the value of appearance vs. results as part of the criteria for making that decision must be considered.
I could not support the desired economic and social results that appear to be Warren's goals. So would she be a better president for the America I want to see because she is a better person than Triump? Would a "hell yes" answer be a vote for appearance over end results?
At this point in the race I don't think Warren would be a better president for America than Trump is.
Now let me hop back on that fence post. Many may think I sit there to judge which way the wind is blowing, but I know I am sitting there to keep my feet out of the pigpen mud, poop, (hehe I said poop), and slop that is on the ground of either side.
[EDIT ADDED] Oops, I just saw that Valeant asked "better for the country" not whether she would be a better president. Is there a difference?
Picking up on our past discourse, I get the impression that you oppose Trump more on style than the fundamental substance of policies. While, I am opposed to both.
There are a few that want to see Trump replaced as captain and replaced with someone less caustic, all while the ship of state remains on the same course.
My problems with the system go far deeper than my disapproval of any single leader.
Nearly right Cred. I oppose Trump because of his personal character. I agree with most of the personal criticisms thrown at him.
Regarding his policies, my view of him is not greatly different from other presidents; I like some, I oppose some, and some are just nuts, (policies that is).
I am completely with you are your closing statement.
I think Warren will be the choice. She will take over where Hillary, (first woman president,) left off in Democrat's minds, perhaps. Bernie appeals to the non-conformists. Warren appeals to more educated Democrats. She does have some good perspectives.
What's w r o n g with Warren?
by Credence2 6 months ago
I am more than distressed with Warren's announcement that she is dropping from the Presidential race.I am reminded of a scene from Star Trek "First Contact" when the crew of the Enterprise are forced to go back in time from the 24th to the mid 21st Century to combat cybernetic creatures...
by ga anderson 6 months ago
Democratic Party Releases Footage of Kidnapped Kamala Harris “Endorsing” Joe Biden "(Unknown...
by Steven Escareno 8 months ago
During the democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders was accused of allegedly saying, to Elizabeth Warren personally in 2018, that he thought a woman could never be president. I personally think he was being set up with that loaded question to be honest, as I feel like that question alone tells me...
by Philip Cooper 5 years ago
Do you think Hilary Clinton will become the Democratic nomination in 2016?
by Steven Escareno 5 months ago
After talking to some conservative friends of mine, who shall remain anonymous as their identities are not important to this discussion, a lot of them feel Bernie Sanders is not only a sell out, but a fraud as well. I don't personally agree with that at all, but this is what they've told...
by ga anderson 5 weeks ago
I think Kamala Harris was his best choice. I think she will probably put him over the top with a lot of swing voters.GA
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|