Jump to content

The 2020 Presidential Race


chasfh
 Share

Recommended Posts

BetMGM Michigan $600 Risk-Free bet

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is now available! Start betting at BetMGM Michigan now and get a $600 risk-free bet bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan Now

On 10/23/2019 at 1:23 PM, 313DetroitCity said:

How is she doing outside of Minnesota? She is uninspiring and her candidacy has largely been "Sanders & Warren are promising too much".

You don't win a national election when you're a moderate during your primary. She is going to be unable to rally support and get key demographics out to vote, even within the Democratic party.

This. If the Dems don't run on legitimate populist ideas that will help people's daily lives, the Dems are going to lose. And one by one, each does something to prove they are more fighting against Trump with platitudes instead of policies. Why? Because they really don't want to rock the boat on their gravy train, which means they really don't want to see legitimate change. All they really want is Trump out of office so it can be corruption as it was prior to him for both parties. The problem they are running into is a Dem base that's more progressive than their policies, and that's getting more exposed every day to more and more people. How many Dems voted for the balloon-sized military budget that gave Trump even more than he asked for despite the fact they all say he's a danger to our society? How many Dems will actually fight to change the Trump tax bill if they get in office? Not guessing very many. And now let's look at medicare for all - we are down to exactly one candidate who hasn't changed his/her stance on it. Everyone has hedged on it now, which means even if it remains their ideal (which it doesn't) then they won't fight for it. We'll end up with some modifications from the Republican think tank (the Heritage Foundation) and it will fail. We'll end up with a private option with mostly old and sick in it which will raise the costs of any government plan, result in a two-tier medical system based on private care and government care and it will fall flat on its face so people can say "See, medicare for all doesn't work." Most Dem candidates don't care if this is the eventual conclusion because they want that money from those donors just as much as Republicans do.

Klobuchar doesn't do anything at the national level to beat Trump. She's one of the people I was talking about above.

A Democrat won't win a general election anytime soon unless they fight for a populist agenda, or at least fake the population that they are seeking a populist agenda.****, Trump lied but a decent amount of his rhetoric was populist while Clinton actually argued to the right of Trump on some of those issues. Look who inspired his base and look who didn't. Look who won and look who lost.

Of course, most of this is basically my opinion on these issues, but I think I have a reasonable pulse on this.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DTroppens said:

This. If the Dems don't run on legitimate populist ideas that will help people's daily lives, the Dems are going to lose. And one by one, each does something to prove they are more fighting against Trump with platitudes instead of policies. Why? Because they really don't want to rock the boat on their gravy train, which means they really don't want to see legitimate change. All they really want is Trump out of office so it can be corruption as it was prior to him for both parties. The problem they are running into is a Dem base that's more progressive than their policies, and that's getting more exposed every day to more and more people. How many Dems voted for the balloon-sized military budget that gave Trump even more than he asked for despite the fact they all say he's a danger to our society? How many Dems will actually fight to change the Trump tax bill if they get in office? Not guessing very many. And now let's look at medicare for all - we are down to exactly one candidate who hasn't changed his/her stance on it. Everyone has hedged on it now, which means even if it remains their ideal (which it doesn't) then they won't fight for it. We'll end up with some modifications from the Republican think tank (the Heritage Foundation) and it will fail. We'll end up with a private option with mostly old and sick in it which will raise the costs of any government plan, result in a two-tier medical system based on private care and government care and it will fall flat on its face so people can say "See, medicare for all doesn't work." Most Dem candidates don't care if this is the eventual conclusion because they want that money from those donors just as much as Republicans do.

Klobuchar doesn't do anything at the national level to beat Trump. She's one of the people I was talking about above.

A Democrat won't win a general election anytime soon unless they fight for a populist agenda, or at least fake the population that they are seeking a populist agenda.****, Trump lied but a decent amount of his rhetoric was populist while Clinton actually argued to the right of Trump on some of those issues. Look who inspired his base and look who didn't. Look who won and look who lost.

Of course, most of this is basically my opinion on these issues, but I think I have a reasonable pulse on this.

Bravo!

None of these puke worthy hucksters represent we the people. DC is a ****ing joke.

Nobody from the White House to the local Courthouse gives one good **** about us.

I'm glad I'm old.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be fine if the party didn't take an active role in influencing who wins the nomination. 

It's going to be either Biden, Warren or Sanders. I think we should be able to agree to  that being pretty obvious - that's unless Clinton joins. If that happens, I think she takes enough votes from Biden and some from Warren and Sanders may become the front runner. However, he won't get enough of the vote to win it with 50-plus people percent probably. Can we say second round super delegates? Heck, without Clinton in it that may happen. 

Biden voters are among the least informed and most probably have no clue how much he's stumbling and bumbling through this entire campaign so far. Most still look at him fondly as Obama's VP and the establishment party officials and media are working hard to protect him at all costs. The key to his campaign is if this remains the case through the first couple of states so he pushes forward well enough to win South Carolina and the southern Super Tuesday states. Then whatever he's done won't matter and he may remain the front runner with the party and media protecting him. If the party can get away with it he'll win a second round super delegate battle. But he's so corrupt, he easily loses to Trump as Trump takes the offensive to Biden's corruption. Trump's base doesn't worry about his corruption and will come out to vote. Biden - a Republican posing as a Dem - will not inspire and will lose horribly. 

Warren can fight a legitimate policy battle with Trump, but her stories of her heritage and some inconsistencies with other life experiences will be polarized, her wishy washy views on medicare for all and willingness to take money from corporations and big donors in the general (funding the DNC is funding her campaign as much as she may not admit it) may hurt her. She could beat Trump. She needs to make sure it's a policy battle and convince people she is on their side and will fight. 

Sanders's issue is the primary. If he wins it (and right now he may be No. 3 to do that) he beats Trump in the general because he does represent change - or at least the fight for it. He wins the policy battle with Trump easily because Trump can't legitimately go to the left of Sander with fake populist rhetoric as well as he did against Clinton. He has 30 years of consistency for being a fighter for the people. But winning the primary will be very tough with the party and the corporate establishment against him. That becomes a benefit in the general. 

With the people currently in the race these are the ones who can win the primary (the others would need what I'd consider party corruption to have any small chance) and I see how they can win. Buttigieg (think I spelled it right) may have a small chance to win the primary if the DNC abandons Biden for him, and there a subtle hints that could Ben happening. If that happens though, Biden voters have Warren or Sanders as their second choices right now, so it's hard seeing Buttigieg being more successful than Biden in that moderate Dem role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DTroppens said:

This. If the Dems don't run on legitimate populist ideas that will help people's daily lives, the Dems are going to lose. And one by one, each does something to prove they are more fighting against Trump with platitudes instead of policies. Why? Because they really don't want to rock the boat on their gravy train, which means they really don't want to see legitimate change. All they really want is Trump out of office so it can be corruption as it was prior to him for both parties. The problem they are running into is a Dem base that's more progressive than their policies, and that's getting more exposed every day to more and more people. How many Dems voted for the balloon-sized military budget that gave Trump even more than he asked for despite the fact they all say he's a danger to our society? How many Dems will actually fight to change the Trump tax bill if they get in office? Not guessing very many. And now let's look at medicare for all - we are down to exactly one candidate who hasn't changed his/her stance on it. Everyone has hedged on it now, which means even if it remains their ideal (which it doesn't) then they won't fight for it. We'll end up with some modifications from the Republican think tank (the Heritage Foundation) and it will fail. We'll end up with a private option with mostly old and sick in it which will raise the costs of any government plan, result in a two-tier medical system based on private care and government care and it will fall flat on its face so people can say "See, medicare for all doesn't work." Most Dem candidates don't care if this is the eventual conclusion because they want that money from those donors just as much as Republicans do.

Klobuchar doesn't do anything at the national level to beat Trump. She's one of the people I was talking about above.

A Democrat won't win a general election anytime soon unless they fight for a populist agenda, or at least fake the population that they are seeking a populist agenda.****, Trump lied but a decent amount of his rhetoric was populist while Clinton actually argued to the right of Trump on some of those issues. Look who inspired his base and look who didn't. Look who won and look who lost.

Of course, most of this is basically my opinion on these issues, but I think I have a reasonable pulse on this.

I think this is mostly correct.  I ***** about Trump because he is a horrible human being and I hate seeing "half" the nation fall in love with a con man.  However, I think both sides are more interested in helping themselves politically and financially than they are in serving the people.  People have caught on to this.  Unfortunately, they haven't caught onto Trump's populist con job, so he has a good chance of being re-elected.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

I think this is mostly correct.  I ***** about Trump because he is a horrible human being and I hate seeing "half" the nation fall in love with a con man.  However, I think both sides are more interested in helping themselves politically and financially than they are in serving the people.  People have caught on to this.  Unfortunately, they haven't caught onto Trump's populist con job, so he has a good chance of being re-elected.    

Trump is what we get when two parties do this. He's as much the Dem's doing as the Republicans. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, DTroppens said:

Trump is what we get when two parties do this. He's as much the Dem's doing as the Republicans. 

Micheal Hirsh has a long piece in Foreign Policy this month about the failures of the globalist economists who had been advising the Democratic Party from Bill Clinton through Obama and how Dems no less than Repubs,  lost the American industrial worker and the country its industrial sector by having following their advice; and this indeed being a significant factor leading directly to the appeal of Trump's brand of populism. The Warren/Sanders axis - in Warren's case you can call her the 1st post Clinton national democrat - at least economic policy wise, are in no small part an attempt by  grass roots democrats to move off the corporatist, globalist economic policies that Bill Clinton embraced in his New Democrat movement and for all intents and purposes erased much economic policy difference between the Dems the GOP.

SB should like the read as he spends a lot of time talking Krugman to task.  :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have Listen Liberal by Thomas Frank on my bookshelf near my "reading station." I need to start reading it instead of my Tiger books. :) I guess I haven't read it yet because I've gotten the cliff notes on it through interviews. It talks about the Dem party's shift from the working class to the professional class. 

I will look for Michael Hirsh's writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

Micheal Hirsh has a long piece in Foreign Policy this month about the failures of the globalist economists who had been advising the Democratic Party from Bill Clinton through Obama and how Dems no less than Repubs,  lost the American industrial worker and the country its industrial sector by having following their advice; and this indeed being a significant factor leading directly to the appeal of Trump's brand of populism. The Warren/Sanders axis - in Warren's case you can call her the 1st post Clinton national democrat - at least economic policy wise, are in no small part an attempt by  grass roots democrats to move off the corporatist, globalist economic policies that Bill Clinton embraced in his New Democrat movement and for all intents and purposes erased much economic policy difference between the Dems the GOP.

SB should like the read as he spends a lot of time talking Krugman to task.  :wink:

I was kinda warming a bit more to Warren until the last debate - while I think that a lot was made about the healthcare exchange (which she took a lot more heat for than in previous debates), I was mostly troubled by how little she appears to have thought about foreign policy. Her response to Tulsi, in particular, is the sort of naivete that you shouldn't be seeing from a top-shelf contender.

And while I doubt that I'm any sort of bellwether for the Dem primary at large, FP is rising as an issue for me in response to our falling back in NE Syria. And frankly, I'd trust Biden or Buttigieg or Klob over Warren at this point there. 

Not saying it's a dealbreaker... she just hasn't checked that box for me yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

Micheal Hirsh has a long piece in Foreign Policy this month about the failures of the globalist economists who had been advising the Democratic Party from Bill Clinton through Obama and how Dems no less than Repubs,  lost the American industrial worker and the country its industrial sector by having following their advice; and this indeed being a significant factor leading directly to the appeal of Trump's brand of populism. The Warren/Sanders axis - in Warren's case you can call her the 1st post Clinton national democrat - at least economic policy wise, are in no small part an attempt by  grass roots democrats to move off the corporatist, globalist economic policies that Bill Clinton embraced in his New Democrat movement and for all intents and purposes erased much economic policy difference between the Dems the GOP.

SB should like the read as he spends a lot of time talking Krugman to task.  :wink:

You are talking about this piece: Economists on the Run

I just read it the other day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

This comment is dripping with arrogance and disdain. The kind that helped Trump win in 2016.

Why?  Anyone not watching through their blue colored glasses can see he's got issues.  I know, they are just gaffes when Uncle Joe does it.  Maybe you need some eye drops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, screwball said:

Why?  Anyone not watching through their blue colored glasses can see he's got issues.  I know, they are just gaffes when Uncle Joe does it.  Maybe you need some eye drops.

I'm asking how it's any different than Hillary's deplorables comment.

It really is not. Just because people dont agree with your world view doesn't make them idiots... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

He does it on purpose.  In private, he's a genius.  

I'm also amused by the judging of Biden's candidacy (and gaffes) from folks who chalk up Trump's candidacy as a big "**** you" to the system.

There's some cognitive dissonance going on there. Especially since it's clear that Biden isnt the preferred media candidate this cycle (Warren is)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Babbling about what?

As a country, we have to stop calling people who don't agree with us idiots. As it stands, it seems like a good amount of people (right and left, pro and anti Trump) do not have the humility to realize they are not right about everything.

In my case, I have my political views, which do not align with the views of many others. That does not mean I know my views are always correct.... I am human, just like everyone else is, and all humans make errors.

With respect to Biden, he really is different from Clinton in that while he has more establishment backing than the others, the media isn't at all in the tank for him... I'd argue (objectively) that he has taken more fire than any candidate in the field by a significant margin. Warren, on the other hand, appears to have taken less media scrutiny overall than Biden has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DTroppens said:

I have Listen Liberal by Thomas Frank on my bookshelf near my "reading station." I need to start reading it instead of my Tiger books. :) I guess I haven't read it yet because I've gotten the cliff notes on it through interviews. It talks about the Dem party's shift from the working class to the professional class. 

I will look for Michael Hirsh's writing.

I think our experience with engineer presidents (e.g Hoover, Carter) is enough to quash any argument that people who understand how stuff works necessarily have any particular leadership skill, but there is a level of understanding about how wealth is actually generated in an economy that engineers do have that too many poli-sci, law, and even economics majors don't have occasion to learn or bother to grasp, (or maybe in the case of the econ majors it's a forest they lose track of studying the trees) and that is that all wealth in economy ultimately comes from only two sources - harvesting valuable stuff that the earth makes for us, and making more valuable stuff out of that stuff. The problem for the New Democrats is that they fell for the same siren song that their economists  fell for, which is that you can be just as rich doing all the support stuff (tech, IP, finance) as you can doing the primary stuff. But the reality is that in the end, all the support fields can only get paid, and in particular workers can only get paid, if someone is using those services to make stuff that creates new value out nothing, which is what manufacturing does that nothing else really does as well. Intellectual property/creativity comes close - but IP still only has value if someone can pay for it, and that still means they rely on sources of primary wealth generation. The other thing they failed to recognize is that intellectual capital is just about the easiest thing to move around the globe. Having it today is no guarantee at all of being able to keep it tomorrow, as China has taught us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan launched online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. We have selected the top Michigan sportsbooks and casinos that offer excellent bonus offers. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - Get a 100% up to $250 deposit bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Click Here to claim $250 deposit bonus at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - Get a $1,000 risk-free bet at FanDuel Michigan on your first bet.

Click Here to claim $1,000 Risk-Free Bet at FanDuel Michigan

BetMGM Michigan - Get a $600 risk-free bet at the BetMGM online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan

   


×
×
  • Create New...