Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
That is a good point, and as a question of political science you may be right (though I'm not totally convinced you are). But speaking strictly as a Democratic primary voter, it is irrelevant to me. I'm not a blue-collar voter in the Midwest, and I'm not going to shade my vote based on what I think will appeal to them. I'm going to vote for the guy or gal I think will make the best president.
In my lifetime four incumbent presidents have been re-elected (Reagan, Clinton, W and Obama) and two have been defeated (Carter, Bush 41). With the former group, the maps looked very similar to what they had been four years prior, with only a few small changes. With the latter two, they looked completely different. All of which is to say I'm very wary of the view that all we have to do is flip the three midwest states we lost in '16 and restore order in the world. It may yet end up being the path to victory. But I want a candidate who's going to enter the campaign with the goal of really scrambling the 2016 map.
That's my attitude too- I clearly have very little idea what the American people want in a presidential candidate after 2016, so I'm gonna try to forget about electability and vote for the person I think would make the best president. I'm just articulating the case for him; it's fairly strong and shouldn't be brushed aside.
I should add that I am at least somewhat intrigued by Sherrod Brown, not because I think he will automatically win votes in the Midwest but because his emphasis on the "dignity of work" appeals to me on a personal level. (Though I am also enough of a realist to worry about the Dems conceding a key battleground Senate seat if he wins.)
Agreed, although I also think people are forgetting how bad of a candidate he has proven to be in the past. He literally has had one competitive election in his entire life (his first Senate campaign, in 1972). So I don't view Biden as a "threat" to win the nomination (not that I would describe him that way anyway). And hey, if he gets out there and proves to be an impressive campaigner who catches fire with the Dem primary electorate, more power to him. I just don't expect it to happen.
It’s always cracks me up how both extreme leftists and extreme rightists dismiss the center as unwinnable.
I think making any assumptions about the impact of a candidate's ideology on the election is probably overstated. In fact, I think in general we put far too much emphasis on candidates rather than structural conditions. Candidate quality matters, but mostly at the margins, that last 2-3% that can decide a close election. To cite one example, I was a huge Obama supporter in the 2008 primary, but I viewed the battle between him and Hillary as like one of those '80s NFC Championship Games where the 49ers and Giants would battle it out to see which one of them would have the right to destroy the AFC team in the Super Bowl. There was no f###ing way the Dems were losing that election.timschochet said:
McCain wasn't too old to win the nomination over a wide open field. And his age was a particular drawback because he was running against a healthy, energetic 48 year old. Biden would be running against an overweight 74 year old who is pretty clearly in the early stages of dementia. He'd be the healthier-looking and younger-looking of the two general election candidates by a decent stretch.apple said:
Probably Johnson was the best Presidency, but Obama may have been the best President.
I would say that Clinton probably best reflected the policies and beliefs of Americans during his 8 years. Obama best reflected the policies and beliefs of his party during his 8 years. So the choice between the two for me would come down to a discussion of the role of a President.
I think the President is best as the moral compass of the nation. I think we did the most to move that forward during Johnson, though I appreciate Obama's moral compass more than Johnson's.
I hate this thinking. I could care less about how electable candidates are. People should vote for the candidate that best supports their positions on the issues, but as a society we've been brainwashed into voting for the lesser evil. Most of my family voted for Hillary in the primaries over Bernie, not because they actually supported her policies, but because Bernie wasn't "electable". Are there any other aspects of society where we behave like this?
I think what Clinton did best was work with both sides (and maybe a credit to those in congress and the nasty stuff didn't come til later during his presidency).
It's a fair question. But I'd say most of society operates this way. It's compromise. Lots of businesses especially make decisions choosing to promote maybe not the option they think is actually the best but the one they think they can actually get to market. It's the idealist vs the realist. And the understanding that a great idea that never gets past the idea stage may not be as good as the lesser idea that actually becomes reality. Lawyers do this all the time settling a case where both sides get something not quite as good as it might have been but not as bad as it could have been.
I would have said that Brown's unpresidential appearance was a death knell, but then Bernie happened. I think Brown does have all of Bernie's perceived authenticity and a lot more gravitas, IMO. Also, and I hate to say it, but each time one of these tangential links between the Bernie campaign and the Manafort Ukraine work come up, I get a bit less comfortable.
Can you elaborate on what you think is so bad and why you think it?
Thanks Joe. He voted to repeat Glass-Steagall and is in general against deregulation of banks (I guess representing Delaware has caused him to be a true believer in that), voted yes for the Patriot Act (it's like we don't even see that as a giant blow to our civil liberties anymore) and that he's pro-war is really all I need to dislike him and I would think progressives would too. Selling Obama's 3rd term really isn't a positive to me because Obama was too centrist for me. I suppose people can say "most of his legislation was 30 years ago" well that isn't very good defense. The only old person I think that has healthy ideas for our country is definitely not named Joe Biden.
Joe Biden Net Worth: $900,000. Joe Biden's net worth is $900,000, according to Celebrity Net Worth. Most of his wealth likely comes from his eight years as vice president, during which he received an annual salary of at least $230,700.Dec 4, 2018
Eh that ain’t nothin’ in DC politics. I think almost every other candidate will be in the same category.
When you look at their policies in hindsight it's not flattering as a democrat. Clinton passed major Republican legislation:
The problem is a) people are bad at determining who is more "electable" and b) that type of thinking leads to boring, lowest-common-denominators candidates like John Kerry and Mitt Romney. It reminds me a little of people who take jobs they're not excited about because they think other people will find the job impressive, then find themselves dreading going to work every day.
This is an unfounded myth that many people (not just you) try to pass across. It doesn't seem to have any basis in reality that an old person can't energize the youth. Look at Bernie a couple years ago.
I think Bernie is the exception. The best Democratic presidents have been young and energetic (WJC and BHO).
Id say the same about Bernie...late 70s and into their 80s during a term. No thanks. Too much risk with the mind that age.
After the last 2+ years I’m struggling to come up with a scandal that forces a candidate out of a race. You can pretty much be horrible with impunity as long as you are on my team.
The problem is ANY person that gets elected President over the last 20 years and the next 20 will be perceived as a war monger - we’ve done this to ourselves. And in some (several?) cases it’s been the right thing to do.
Only Trump is undisturbed by scandal. Other people play by different rules.
I think it has to do with whether you're capable of shame. Gianforte body slammed a reporter and then lied about it, but still managed to win his election. Roy Moore nearly won a Senate seat despite credible allegations of molesting teenage girls (it's true he did lose, but the key is that he never came close to dropping out, and many Republicans continued to support him.) Meanwhile Franken resigned his Senate seat mostly because of a dumb picture where he pretended to grab a woman's breast.
I was mostly being hyperbolic and sarcastic but it seems to me like it could happen again. But agree, vast majority wouldn’t get away with it.
