If the 2020 GE Candidates are ___, then ____. (1 Viewer)

[TheMagus]

I think they're reckless choices because of the policies they seek to implement.

President Trump's foreign policy, cabinet stability, fiscal choices, and other things are reckless.

Pete Buttigieg is a mayor of a college town. To expect him to have any foreign policy import is reckless.

Elizabeth Warren would absolutely fundamentally change the economic system of the United States, as would Bernie Sanders. Neither has real foreign policy experience. Both of those items make them reckless choices.

Joe Biden has proven over the years to be pretty much wrong and reckless about many things, especially including foreign policy.

That these people are our top candidates for high office shows a recklessness among voters for putting them there.

So after reading this a lot from those that are more conservative/Republican/however you would label yourself in these times, who do you think should be running from the Democratic party and who should be the front runner right now if they already are but aren't getting the attention you think they should? I just keep seeing how awful these Democratic candidates are, but who do you think would be better that isn't a Republican?

Obviously Trump is a foregone conclusion, but how do you think we could do better on the other side?

 

[ren hoek]

It shouldn't matter if they have no shot, your vote is just a representation of the platform you'd like to see implemented... not the best choice of who you think everyone else is voting for.  If I were placing a bet on the winner, yea that would be a waste, in that case but thats not what we're doing.

It does matter to some extent too because it gives funding to parties that reach certain thresholds and builds them up for the future.

It's basically like saying you should vote for the least worst, out of fear that too many people will vote for the most worst.  Who would you pick for any other job in life?  The best guy or the not worst?  It doesn't make any sense.  

 

[Van Dyman]

I think they're reckless choices because of the policies they seek to implement.

President Trump's foreign policy, cabinet stability, fiscal choices, and other things are reckless.

Pete Buttigieg is a mayor of a college town. To expect him to have any foreign policy import is reckless.

Elizabeth Warren would absolutely fundamentally change the economic system of the United States, as would Bernie Sanders. Neither has real foreign policy experience. Both of those items make them reckless choices.

Joe Biden has proven over the years to be pretty much wrong and reckless about many things, especially including foreign policy.

That these people are our top candidates for high office shows a recklessness among voters for putting them there.

Maybe. Very few people are going to have high level experience in every category. Foreign policy is often a weakness for candidates whose background is...Governor, US Rep, private businessman, etc. Any candidate is going to have to assemble knowledgeable teams to aid in him every category. The ability (skill?) to ascertain which people would best serve them in such capacities is paramount, and the level to which we trust the candidate to get the right people is critical to many voters' analysis. I never trusted Trump to actually surround himself with "the best people", but the reasons I didn't trust him to do that are beyond a lack of experience. Mayor Pete might really be better in that department. Or, more cynically speaking, he might be just as good at convincing people that he will be good at it.

 

[rockaction]

So after reading this a lot from those that are more conservative/Republican/however you would label yourself in these times, who do you think should be running from the Democratic party and who should be the front runner right now if they already are but aren't getting the attention you think they should? I just keep seeing how awful these Democratic candidates are, but who do you think would be better that isn't a Republican?

Obviously Trump is a foregone conclusion, but how do you think we could do better on the other side?

That's a great question. I'll have to think about it. I think the Democratic Party's platform and their vetting questions for who would be acceptable candidates are too far to the left for me to even have a candidate at the ready from that party. I'd also have to be more familiar with the candidates to suggest one that would be amenable to me. I admit my criticism isn't necessarily constructive, but it's what I've got.

Jim Hickenlooper comes to mind, but his run was wildly unsuccessful.

 

[rockaction]

Maybe. Very few people are going to have high level experience in every category. Foreign policy is often a weakness for candidates whose background is...Governor, US Rep, private businessman, etc. Any candidate is going to have to assembly knowledgeable teams to aid in him every category. The ability (skill?) to ascertain which people would best serve them in such capacities is paramount, and the level to which we trust the candidate to get the right people is critical to many analysis. I never trusted Trump to actually surround himself with "the best people", but the reasons I didn't trust him to do that are beyond a lack of experience. Mayor Pete might really be better in that department. Or, more cynically speaking, he might be just as good at convincing people that he will be good at it.

That's true, and your broader and later point is taken. I'll say this for me: foregin policy, generalized liberty, health care, and job creation are my top four issues in rank order of importance. I think that's why I'm where I am with the foreign policy concerns about a college town mayor. I would have voted for Hillary Clinton if I didn't live in CA last time because she would have kept our foreign policy at least at status quo, if not even reestablishing our alliance with England unlike President Obama, a development I would welcome. An enforcement of NATO and its tenets would have been nice, and I think she would have done that. I would also think her dealings with Continental Europe would have been much more smooth than President Trump's dealings. And on and on. But I don't have that same faith in Mayor Pete. I expect him to bring a left-wing version of foreign policy into office, and that's something I don't really abide very well. I'd rather have the centrist. 

So maybe, to answer the question above by The Magus, Hillary is probably the best Democratic candidate I can think of, and I can't believe I'm typing that.

 

[Van Dyman]

That's a great question. I'll have to think about it. I think the Democratic Party's platform and their vetting questions for who would be acceptable candidates are too far to the left for me to even have a candidate at the ready from that party. I'd also have to be more familiar with the candidates to suggest one that would be amenable to me. I admit my criticism isn't necessarily constructive, but it's what I've got.

Jim Hickenlooper comes to mind, but his run was wildly unsuccessful.

I might be on an island, but I think his campaign was WILDLY SUCCESSFUL. The point of his his presidential campaign wasn't getting the D nomination. The point was to gather money and attention to boost his run for US Senate.

 

[rockaction]

I might be on an island, but I think his campaign was WILDLY SUCCESSFUL. The point of his his presidential campaign wasn't getting the D nomination. The point was to gather money and attention to boost his run for US Senate.

Oh, sure, if that's how to look at it, then yes. I was talking about pure presidential aspirations. 

 

[TheMagus]

That's true, and your broader and later point is taken. I'll say this for me: foregin policy, generalized liberty, health care, and job creation are my top four issues in rank order of importance. I think that's why I'm where I am with the foreign policy concerns about a college town mayor. I would have voted for Hillary Clinton if I didn't live in CA last time because she would have kept our foreign policy at least at status quo, if not even reestablishing our alliance with England unlike President Obama, a development I would welcome. An enforcement of NATO and its tenets would have been nice, and I think she would have done that. I would also think her dealings with Continental Europe would have been much more smooth than President Trump's dealings. And on and on. But I don't have that same faith in Mayor Pete. I expect him to bring a left-wing version of foreign policy into office, and that's something I don't really abide very well. I'd rather have the centrist. 

So maybe, to answer the question above by The Magus, Hillary is probably the best Democratic candidate I can think of, and I can't believe I'm typing that.

I find this really amusing because I almost typed that it sounds like you want Hillary, but didn't want to come across as being snarky. 

 

[rockaction]

I find this really amusing because I almost typed that it sounds like you want Hillary, but didn't want to come across as being snarky. 

I wouldn't have taken it that way, actually. I know when I'm beat. I find it amusing, like you, but for a different reason. I find it amusing because I sound like tim.

 

[Van Dyman]

That's true, and your broader and later point is taken. I'll say this for me: foregin policy, generalized liberty, health care, and job creation are my top four issues in rank order of importance. I think that's why I'm where I am with the foreign policy concerns about a college town mayor. I would have voted for Hillary Clinton if I didn't live in CA last time because she would have kept our foreign policy at least at status quo, if not even reestablishing our alliance with England unlike President Obama, a development I would welcome. An enforcement of NATO and its tenets would have been nice, and I think she would have done that. I would also think her dealings with Continental Europe would have been much more smooth than President Trump's dealings. And on and on. But I don't have that same faith in Mayor Pete. I expect him to bring a left-wing version of foreign policy into office, and that's something I don't really abide very well. I'd rather have the centrist. 

So maybe, to answer the question above by The Magus, Hillary is probably the best Democratic candidate I can think of, and I can't believe I'm typing that.

On the bolded, I'm sadly uninformed on Pete's foreign policy goals. I was under the impression that he's the more moderate centrist Dem candidate and assumed (perhaps wrongly) that he would NOT pursue a "left-wing version of foreign policy". Guess I need to do my homework. Off the the Pete thread now...

 

[rockaction]

On the bolded, I'm sadly uninformed on Pete's foreign policy goals. I was under the impression that he's the more moderate centrist Dem candidate and assumed (perhaps wrongly) that he would NOT pursue a "left-wing version of foreign policy". Guess I need to do my homework. Off the the Pete thread now...

I'm also guessing, so don't take my word for its definitiveness.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So after reading this a lot from those that are more conservative/Republican/however you would label yourself in these times, who do you think should be running from the Democratic party and who should be the front runner right now if they already are but aren't getting the attention you think they should? I just keep seeing how awful these Democratic candidates are, but who do you think would be better that isn't a Republican?

Obviously Trump is a foregone conclusion, but how do you think we could do better on the other side?

I guess it depends on what your focus is.  If you want anything close to a return to normalcy and a steady hand, Joe Biden isn't a terrible choice.  I've always respected him for the most part though I don't agree with everything he stands for.  I never considered him someone unfit to hold that job and do it well - specific policy disagreements aside.

I don't envision I will ever vote for someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.  If either of them are the choice against Trump, I'm voting 3rd party.  I will never vote for Trump.  For any office.

I posted in the Mayor Pete thread that, for now, he has my support.  I'm not terribly worried about the "he's only a mayor" rhetoric.  He seems to get it, and it's not like he is going to fill his cabinet with town councilman from small towns in Indiana.  Bloomberg, Clinton and Patrick all need to just go away and stop already. 

 

[ren hoek]

That's likely a good topic for discussion. And maybe more what the OP was getting at. 

I was the most curious about which candidate would drive the highest turnout among fbgs.  I would have thought Sanders was a more popular choice in a h2h than he turned out.  One additional person stayed home only if Warren was the candidate.  Sanders and Warren both pushed people away from DEM, and toward TRUMP/3RD party.  A lot of people assess Buttigieg to be an enthusiastic option, while Biden pushes them away to 3rd party.  That's interesting to me.  

I tried to frame the poll in a fair way.  Didn't mean for it to come off like there was a subtext about third parties.  

 

[ZEKEPA]

We get it. No need to elaborate.

This is really about who Democrats will support. 

So then why are these posts allowed? And you wonder why the echo chamber comments are sometimes directed at you. 

From Tolstoy...

1. Any Dem

2. Inanimate Carbon Rod

3. Stay home.

From Gosbrother...

I would vote for a head of lettuce over Trump.  Cabbage would be closer but would still get my vote.

From Slapdash...

We could use a vegetable with this much culinary dexterity in the White House.

 

[Joe Bryant]

So then why are these posts allowed? And you wonder why the echo chamber comments are sometimes directed at you. 

From Tolstoy...

1. Any Dem

2. Inanimate Carbon Rod

3. Stay home.

From Gosbrother...

I would vote for a head of lettuce over Trump.  Cabbage would be closer but would still get my vote.

From Slapdash...

We could use a vegetable with this much culinary dexterity in the White House.

His post was allowed too. And yes, all the posts you quote above are lame and not helpful as well.  I just happened to see it and commented. If you see something over the line that is trolling, please report it. 

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Thx for the poll. The results are as I expected, given that moderates are a larger group than progressives and Warren is the most polarizing.

 

[Dickies]

I think they're reckless choices because of the policies they seek to implement.

President Trump's foreign policy, cabinet stability, fiscal choices, and other things are reckless.

Pete Buttigieg is a mayor of a college town. To expect him to have any foreign policy import is reckless.

Elizabeth Warren would absolutely fundamentally change the economic system of the United States, as would Bernie Sanders. Neither has real foreign policy experience. Both of those items make them reckless choices.

Joe Biden has proven over the years to be pretty much wrong and reckless about many things, especially including foreign policy.

That these people are our top candidates for high office shows a recklessness among voters for putting them there.

Who should the Dems nominate that has sufficient foreign policy experience?  Seems like a very difficult area to gain relevant experience in without neglecting other important qualifications. I’m okay with a POTUS without foreign policy experience as long as I generally agree with their objectives and they surround themselves with experts. 

 

[rockaction]

Who should the Dems nominate that has sufficient foreign policy experience?  Seems like a very difficult area to gain relevant experience in without neglecting other important qualifications. I’m okay with a POTUS without foreign policy experience as long as I generally agree with their objectives and they surround themselves with experts. 

They did. Her name was Hillary and she lost.

Finding qualified candidates was my problem with voting Democrat in general, but I'm not sure either party is ready to tackle foreign policy right now. I'd nominate Long Ball Larry to do it at this point, quite frankly.

 

[Dickies]

They did. Her name was Hillary and she lost.

Finding qualified candidates was my problem with voting Democrat in general, but I'm not sure either party is ready to tackle foreign policy right now. I'd nominate Long Ball Larry to do it at this point, quite frankly.

He’s got my vote.  Set up us the PAC

 

[ZEKEPA]

His post was allowed too. And yes, all the posts you quote above are lame and not helpful as well.  I just happened to see it and commented. If you see something over the line that is trolling, please report it. 

Thanks but apparently my point was not taken. Or ignored, seeing the posts I quoted were made prior to the one you decided to comment on. Obviously this is your site, but you are certainly making a case for the argument that you support one side's views and not the other. Which is part of the problem I thought you were trying to solve. It is my opinion comments such as the one you made encourage the anti-Trump comments. Those that CONSTANTLY make disrespectful Trump posts generally know, or think you are on their side and that it is really OK to do so. Furthermore, why should I have to report something that you have obviously already viewed and hence ignored or supported? Yet you felt the need to tell someone not to elaborate on their opinion. 

 

[Stealthycat]

it should really read GOP vs DNC

the names are not important anymore are they ?

 

[sho nuff]

it should really read GOP vs DNC

the names are not important anymore are they ?

Yes they are...as the polls show right now.

And if it were another candidate besides Trump on the GOP sode the results would likely be different.

Myself, Id favor Kasich or similar over Sanders, Warren, or Biden.  But not Trump over any of them.

 

[Stealthycat]

Myself, Id favor Kasich or similar over Sanders, Warren, or Biden.  But not Trump over any of them.

really? I'm surprised to hear that

most voters see the party platforms and the core differences as the source of their voting, not a pretty face or good speaker etc right? am I wrong in that? 

you'd vote Kasich, who represents a pro-gun, pro-life, cut taxes part like the GOP over Sander/Warren/Biden ? 

 

[sho nuff]

really? I'm surprised to hear that

most voters see the party platforms and the core differences as the source of their voting, not a pretty face or good speaker etc right? am I wrong in that? 

you'd vote Kasich, who represents a pro-gun, pro-life, cut taxes part like the GOP over Sander/Warren/Biden ? 

Im not a huge progressive.  There are parts of it I can get in board with but not everything.  And I dint think Biden is a good choice at all for the Oval.

I have core differences with both parties...so it comes down to weighing things out.  I believe Kasich would be more pragmatic in his approach to issues.  I don't think he is just pro tax cuts (in the manner that Trump used them)...but is fiscally conservative and would be less likely to explode the deficit more to feed the rich.  His stances on gun control are reasonable as well.

I think what you will see is there are a lot of conservatives that have pushed left because of things Trump has done.  There are several on this board. 

 

[ZEKEPA]

really? I'm surprised to hear that

most voters see the party platforms and the core differences as the source of their voting, not a pretty face or good speaker etc right? am I wrong in that? 

you'd vote Kasich, who represents a pro-gun, pro-life, cut taxes part like the GOP over Sander/Warren/Biden ? 

Never understood this love for Kasich. The guy couldn't even win his own state in the Primary. I see people clamoring for him yet he had practically no support. Very strange. 

 

[sho nuff]

Never understood this love for Kasich. The guy couldn't even win his own state in the Primary. I see people clamoring for him yet he had practically no support. Very strange. 

Because I believe he is a netter person and leader and not as corrupt as the current resident in the Oval.  So I used him as an example

 

[Stealthycat]

Never understood this love for Kasich. The guy couldn't even win his own state in the Primary. I see people clamoring for him yet he had practically no support. Very strange. 

I can see liking one candidate far more than another inside a party ............. but I cannot imagine voting Democrat ever again because of their core values.

I know there are a few people who toggle on the fence of liberal/conservative .... I'm guessing its very very few