I've been wondering about this. Who should run in 2020? To be honest, I know nothing about several of these people. Oprah Winfrey??? Are they being serious or is the Party in that much trouble? Running a media schmotz like Donald Trump may appeal to Republican voters, but I don't think that kind of appeal works for discerning liberals. And if anything at all, Democrats need to stop acting like Republicans and get back to their roots.
Most of the names I actually recognize are the political good old boys, but I would prefer someone trustworthy and honest, someone who is committed to the average American. But I'm not sure I could recognize a dedicated statesman if I saw one.
Brauch, notice, Hillary is not on the list. You can stop letting Hillary take up space in your head. You know you can stop obsessing on her when she's been dropped and Oprah has been added. Hillary is NOT a factor.
Quote
Who should run for President in 2020?
Select all the Democrats you could support for President against Donald Trump in 2020.
Joe Biden, former Vice President
Cory Booker, New Jersey Senator
Julian Castro, former HUD Secretary
Andrew Cuomo, New York Governor
Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles Mayor
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Senator
Kamala Harris, California Senator
Eric Holder, former Attorney General
John Hickenlooper, Colorado Governor
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Senator
Deval Patrick, former Massachusetts Governor
Bernie Sanders, Vermont Senator
Tom Steyer, Environmental and Trump Impeachment advocate
Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Senator
Oprah Winfrey, Media Entrepreneur
None of the above - I support Donald Trump
Honestly, I think people underestimate Oprah's chances. A lot of people love her, and she has many years of good will built up. I think as far as female candidates go, her chances would be better than any who ran before her, and you know the chance of getting our first woman President would appeal to some people. I would prefer Bernie Sanders myself, though. It all depends on who the super delegates choose, but I really think super delegates should stop being a thing.
Right off the top of my head, I'd go for Elizabeth Warren.
"discerning liberals" = Bernie Bros? How can the corruption of political power be overcome? Superdelegates is enough reason for me not to be a Democrat, on procedural grounds. I could have taken Bernie Sanders seriously in 2016, but the D-party is like ancient Egypt, they will run even an embalmed Hillary ;-( No wonder zombie TV shows are so popular.
Julian Castro is interesting (Hispanic and Texan) ;-) He has an identical twin brother who can act as decoy.
John Hickenlooper is funny, I would vote for him as President, just so we can have President Hickenlooper ;-)
Tulsi Gabbard is interesting (woman and Hindu), served in National Guard medical unit in Kuwait ... so my kind of person
Keith Ellison is interesting (Muslim expelled from the DNC)
Anyone who is anti-war of choice (but not pacifist) is a winner.
But no, the D-party will run Oprah Winfrey to get the woman and Black vote, and for name recognition.
The two major parties can't fall into the dustbin of history soon enough.
Yeah, Oprah has a following. My Sister in Chicago loves her. Partly because she's a hometown girl, and partly it's just my sister. Oprah's heart might be in the right place, but she has no credentials. I think that matters to liberals, but maybe not. She might have more popularity than other primary candidates, but I'm not sure she's the best candidate to field in the general election. I guess I'd need to know who all the primary candidates will be first. And having said that, I don't have anyone in mind that I would heartily support from a strategic standpoint at this time.
Quote from: SGOS on May 13, 2018, 11:32:22 AM
Yeah, Oprah has a following. My Sister in Chicago loves her. Partly because she's a hometown girl, and partly it's just my sister. Oprah's heart might be in the right place, but she has no credentials. I think that matters to liberals, but maybe not. She might have more popularity than other primary candidates, but I'm not sure she's the best candidate to field in the general election. I guess I'd need to know who all the primary candidates will be first. And having said that, I don't have anyone in mind that I would heartily support from a strategic standpoint at this time.
Joe Biden was the real President under Obama, just as Cheney was the real President under Shrub, and Pence is the real President under Trump. The CIA picks them for the "pseudo-candidate". So Winfrey doesn't have to be qualified. Reagan wasn't ... but when I was a young-un .. I could vote for a Hollywood figure, I don't think I can again. How about Robert Downey Jr, as Ironman President?
I'm not going to give this topic serious thought until it is closer to the primaries, and I don't want to hear the word Christmas mentioned until at least after Thanksgiving.
I don't want Oprah as POTUS because I don't want another completely unqualified and inexperienced person in office. It's odd to me that no one would hire a person with no management experience or business education to be CEO of Amazon but are perfectly fine with having someone run the country-- make major decisions in the military, foreign policy, taxes and such-- based on congeniality and shared values. The solution to a white, male, unqualified, celebrity president who is a master at branding isn't a black, female, unqualified celebrity president who is a master of branding.
I don't follow Oprah at all. My sister would leave the television on for me when she left for work, a nice gesture so I could watch Oprah, I suppose, but as soon as she left I would turn off the TV. There was nothing of interest that time of day, and Oprah least of all. Does anyone know where Oprah stands on:
Environmental issues
Wilderness
Logging
Mining
Privatizing Public Lands
Carbon emissions
Women's choice
Real national healthcare
Redistricting in Chicago (by Democrats)
Immigration
Preferential treatment for Christianity
Gay issues
Campaign finance reform
Gun control
Education at all levels
I could make assumptions on these and others, but I really have no idea. Is she really interested in running?
I like Hickenlooper as governor, but doubt he has the national exposure for a presidential run.
I wish Biden had run last time, would have preferred him over Clinton. Like a lot about him, think he could challenge Trump for "white working class", but worried about his age and tendency to say stupid things.
Sanders seems like a one note guy with a crazy devoted following; Democratic Ron Paul.
Warren was Sanders before Sanders, seems more well rounded. Obvious line of attacks on 'Pocahontas' and liberal elite.
I wouldn't rule out Tim Kaine making a run.
I'd submit Tammy Duckworth as a dark-horse. Lack of experience vs compelling personnel narrative. Get ready for another round of debates over "natural born citizen"
Oprah won't run for president, it's an idiotic idea.
I think Biden will be the guy, but we shall see. I'll remember to go back to this thread in a year and a half.
Joe Biden seems to be an absolutely wonderful human being, so he would certainly be my first choice.
Julian Castro did a good job in San Antonio, and he is Latino, so he is my second pick.
After that... ehhh...
I'm more concerned about getting people like Pelosi and Schumer out of power, because the "old guard" of Democrats are holding the party back severely. The party has gotten too old, rich and out of touch with the constituents they claim to represent (minorities, the working class, younger populations, etc.) to be able to really spark any excitement with their core.
I think that is why the Democrats have done so poorly... people of my generation and social class have to vote against Republicans rather than for Democrats, and that isn't the best way to get people to the booths.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 13, 2018, 02:04:46 PM
I think that is why the Democrats have done so poorly... people of my generation and social class have to vote against Republicans rather than for Democrats, and that isn't the best way to get people to the booths.
What are your thoughts on Bernie Sanders?
Quote from: GSOgymrat on May 13, 2018, 02:08:22 PM
What are your thoughts on Bernie Sanders?
I would have voted for him. I'm not sure he could have beat Trump. If it's true that Trump won because a lot of Democrats stayed home (the only musing from a pollster I've heard as to why they got the prediction wrong), Sanders may have won. A lot of his supporters were younger and may NOT have been energized by the old school Democratic Party. It depends on whether the Hillary backers would have stayed home if Sanders had he won the nomination.
Quote from: Mermaid on May 13, 2018, 01:28:03 PM
Oprah won't run for president, it's an idiotic idea.
I think Biden will be the guy, but we shall see. I'll remember to go back to this thread in a year and a half.
Biden already President under Obama (see Ukraine) ... but he could run, he certainly has the experience ;-)) But aren't we getting like Russia, where Medvedev and Putin trade off ... offices?
Bernie would have won, but he was paid to get screwed over, as the Un-Hillary in the primaries, as Hillary was supposed to be the Un-Trump in the general election. Biden is deep state, same as John Kerry. So he would be acceptable to the spooks.
Tammy Duckworth - definitely a good pick ... anyone who has combat experience and who has learned something from it. McCaine isn't a good example.
Lithmus test issues don't matter, because once in office, they never govern that way. If I were running for office, I would make no promises at all. I would say, all depends on future circumstances. I will apply my ability to taking advantage of those future circumstances, in favor of the common good.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on May 13, 2018, 02:08:22 PM
What are your thoughts on Bernie Sanders?
I love him politically, but I feel he agrees too much with me on "leftist" ideology and thus would make an inefficient politician; without the support of the Senate and House (with both parties currently leaning to the right) his hands would be heavily tied on how much he would actually be able to accomplish. I also haven't seen much to convince me he has any actual political power to get other politicians to bend to his will either.
Unless my generation and progressives get out, run for office and vote... a Sanders presidency would be more of a disappointment than an achievement I am afraid. The DNC showed they are not particularly interested in his ideology with how heavily they supported Hillary at the cost of Bernie (who polled better than her), and obviously the GOP has no interest in working with him. He has to have sympathetic politicians around him to be truly effective, and that's just not where we are at at this moment.
I feel he would lead to deeper fractures between the left and the right and lead to even more partisanship. If we get a "leftist" for president, we either need a sympathetic House and Senate or a president who can drag both parties, even if they are kicking and screaming, to their agenda. I just cant see the Legislative cooperating with him, nor him having the force of will to bend them to his ideology, so any law he manages to get through would be implemented half-assedly... and then both sides will just point and blame the other.
That said, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat over Trump, and voted for him in the primaries over Hillary. He wouldn't have been any worse than the current situation.
QuoteA lot of his supporters were younger and may NOT have been energized by the old school Democratic Party. It depends on whether the Hillary backers would have stayed home if Sanders had he won the nomination.
I think many people who voted for Hillary still would have gotten out for Sanders simply because they voted Democrat rather than candidate. That was Sanders true appeal; people wanted to vote for him, not his party, so you attract two sets of voters. And he polled better than Hillary for what that is worth against Trump.
I do agree with the remark in OP though that compared him as the Democrats' Ron Paul, unfortunately. that said unlike Ron Paul... I think he actually knows what the fuck he is talking about and isn't completely batshit.
(http://22i18l42a516x0glw28vyk8x4k.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/1-15-18.jpg)
I admit I like Oprah Winfrey. She seems like an empathetic, caring and generous person who obtained her fortune through hard work. She is good at what she does. I know many other people with similar qualities and don't think they are qualified to be POTUS either.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on May 13, 2018, 04:24:04 PM
I admit I like Oprah Winfrey. She seems like an empathetic, caring and generous person who obtained her fortune through hard work. She is good at what she does. I know many other people with similar qualities and don't think they are qualified to be POTUS either.
I believe Oprah herself has said this.
I hope some people don't vote for Oprah in the hope they might just get a new car.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 13, 2018, 05:27:59 PM
I hope some people don't vote for Oprah in the hope they might just get a new car.
Run against the preselected D-party candidate in the primaries, get rewarded a house (see Bernie in 2016 ... it is his third house to own at the same time ... but unlike McCaine ... who had six houses when he ran in 2008, he probably has a clear memory of them). If find it hilarious that any Leftist would vote for a billionaire ... including Winfrey. Would Robespierre vote for Marie Antoinette?
Julián Castro and John Hickenlooper. I love Bernie and Elizabeth, but there is a point where age has to be taken seriously as a factor, and the Presidency is a profoundly difficult job, at least if you give a shit about actually doing it rather than issuing delusional and ungrammatical tweets at 3am.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 13, 2018, 11:00:36 AM
Honestly, I think people underestimate Oprah's chances. A lot of people love her, and she has many years of good will built up.
That's precisely why I doubt she would run. Politics is inherently divisive. Plus, the Presidency is arguably a step down from her current job.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 14, 2018, 11:05:57 PM
That's precisely why I doubt she would run. Politics is inherently divisive. Plus, the Presidency is arguably a step down from her current job.
Currently, she has a good sense of her own image, and a sense of how much that image depends on her behavior. She's riding a wave of loving popularity that is highly profitable, and once she enters politics, she loses all that. She will be hated and demonized for the ultimate petty reasons, and her adoration will be determined by irrelevancies like party affiliation. Yeah, she's got the better job. I think it's actually the harder job, but she is highly skilled at that job. That doesn't mean she will be equally skilled at all other jobs. Staying where she is seems like a no-brainer.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 14, 2018, 11:05:57 PM
That's precisely why I doubt she would run. Politics is inherently divisive. Plus, the Presidency is arguably a step down from her current job.
I would love to see people try to take the moral high ground with Oprah. The only ones I expect would be demonizing her are the far Right, and no one else would find their attempts to do so convincing. What could they do, paint her as an idiot? With a moron that Trump in charge, that ain't gonna fly. Imagine her and Trump in a debate. Two unqualified candidates, but one idiot who can't think of anyone other than himself. Both are successful in business, selling their names, but only one has used their wealth to make a positive difference in the world. Trump wouldn't even be able to fall back on his "quality" of not being a politician.
President Winfrey was literally one of the Jokes in Idiocracy.
With regard to Oprah, all I have to say on the matter is that good intentions do not necessarily make a good presidency. Case in point: Jimmy Carter, who's made a much better job of his post-presidency than he did of his term in office.
Quote from: trdsf on May 15, 2018, 11:27:30 AM
With regard to Oprah, all I have to say on the matter is that good intentions do not necessarily make a good presidency. Case in point: Jimmy Carter, who's made a much better job of his post-presidency than he did of his term in office.
I was disappointed by Carter too, but in retrospect, many of the things that disappointed me were not his doing. Presidents take a lot for blame for things that started long before they ever became candidates, and also take credit for things they had nothing to do with. Carter wasn't the most dynamic sounding president, but I read a piece about one thing he did that was good. Whether he did it by accident or design, I cannot say. Short term it didn't work in his favor. It may be the most important thing he did, and people didn't like it. He is often noted for his doom and gloom attitude to many American problems, "If the country is sick, it might require a bitter pill." And that brings me to:
INFLATION
Carter presided over the worst inflation I've ever seen in our country. And up until then, no president tackled it with more than band aides. People blamed Carter for it, but it really started much earlier with the Vietnam war debt, and the article put most of the blame on Carter's fellow Democrat, Lyndon Johnson who escalated the biggest war debt at the time. Nixon may have equaled him, but that's a guess on my part.
How does a country get rid of unpayable debts? They can inflate the dollar for one thing. We blamed it back then on the Arabs, but a case can be made that the Arabs were only responding to our inflation, not the cause of it as is the popular belief. Carter's role in curbing inflation was to appoint Paul Volcker to the Fed, and he's the one who served up the bitter pill of putting the brakes on the government printing presses, and raising interest rates, sky high too, which curbed spending. People don't like inflation, and they don't like to curb spending money they borrow, and there wasn't a lot to borrow. But economics being the mysterious set of ideologies that it is, this tactic seemed to work. And people hated it! Except me. I put my money in the most boring investment of all time, a money market that invested exclusively in government T-Bills, and I was making over 20% paid in monthly dividends. Eventually, that market went down to 2% or something not worth the effort. It may not even exist today in an environment of sub prime tranches and other exotic investments on Wall Street.
Volcker was head of the Fed well into the Reagan presidency, and when inflation started to ease, and the printing presses started to roll again, and when borrowing rates came down, can you guess who got the credit for America's economic boom that followed?
I read this a long time ago, and found the article surprising, I didn't identify it with some partisan group, not any that were well known at the time. It made sense, but it could be wrong, too. Maybe inflation stopped on a dime with Reagan's trickle down economics. You think?
Quote from: SGOS on May 15, 2018, 12:23:53 PM
I was disappointed by Carter too, but in retrospect, many of the things that disappointed me were not his doing. Presidents take a lot for blame for things that started long before they ever became candidates, and also take credit for things they had nothing to do with. Carter wasn't the most dynamic sounding president, but I read a piece about one thing he did that was good. Whether he did it by accident or design, I cannot say. Short term it didn't work in his favor. It may be the most important thing he did, and people didn't like it. He is often noted for his doom and gloom attitude to many American problems, "If the country is sick, it might require a bitter pill."
Oh, definitely, Carter was beset by a terrible run of luck that would've derailed any presidency, and wasn't his fault, and I won't argue that Reagan got the credit for Carter's long-term planning. Certainly "trickle-down" (or supply side or Laffer curve or, most accurately, voodoo economics) didn't turn the trick: we know that because it's been the only thing the GOP has offered for just about the last 40 years and the only thing it's given us is the extreme wealth gulf we see now. Clearly, nothing has trickled -- remember the Clinton economy? He raised taxes modestly on the highest brackets, and zoom, off it went. The reason for that is both simple and obvious: an economy only works if the money in it actually
moves. Under trickle-down, it's encouraged to stagnate into huge, inert pools.
Certainly before Carter, the economy was already crummy -- I remember 'stagflation' and 'Whip Inflation Now!' buttons -- and he doesn't deserve blame for what he inherited. But also working against Carter was that in the recent post-Watergate era, I think people wanted something other than the terminally glum Nixon or feckless Ford... but neither did they want a serious Sunday school master like Carter turned out to beâ€"although that demeanor is what delivered the Camp David Accords.
Ultimately, I think what did Carter in more than anything else was that he didn't build bridges to the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Also, he tried to run his presidency like the governorship of Georgia writ large, and it's too complex for the kind of micromanagement he could employ as governor. The Carter White House was at odds with the Democratic Congress far more often than they needed to be, and internally bogged down with details.
Yes, one president does not a win/lose make. If you don't take into account Nixon's taking the international dollar off of gold and putting it on oil ... then you aren't paying attention. The domestic dollar had already been raped by LBJ. We are still fighting Nixon's war for oil. Inflation increased from 64-72 because of the Vietnam War and LBJ's complete mismanagement of the economy. Guns and Butter. Ford carried out Nixon's plan, and Carter inherited it, wasn't going to rock that boat. But great instabilities were let loose until Volker tamed them.
Carter was a Trilateralist ... in the David Rockefeller camp of the Deep State. Not a hick.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 13, 2018, 11:00:36 AM
Honestly, I think people underestimate Oprah's chances. A lot of people love her, and she has many years of good will built up. I think as far as female candidates go, her chances would be better than any who ran before her, and you know the chance of getting our first woman President would appeal to some people. I would prefer Bernie Sanders myself, though. It all depends on who the super delegates choose, but I really think super delegates should stop being a thing.
I don't worry about het chances. I worry what would happen Should she get there.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2018, 01:10:03 PM
I don't worry about het chances. I worry what would happen Should she get there.
Just another puppet of the Deep State.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 15, 2018, 01:10:03 PM
I don't worry about het chances. I worry what would happen Should she get there.
Oprah may not be the ideal President, but can you deny that she would be a definite improvement over our current President? Granted, nearly anyone would be an improvement, but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't sigh in relief if she won the next election.
Hell, even Crusty the Clown would be an improvement over the current clown.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 15, 2018, 02:09:25 PM
Oprah may not be the ideal President, but can you deny that she would be a definite improvement over our current President? Granted, nearly anyone would be an improvement, but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't sigh in relief if she won the next election.
It's not about her being better or worse. It's about if she is a good candidate, or not.
If you Want to 'win' at all costs, I suppose you could go dwon that route... but i think you'd be losing a lot more if you or The entire 'sensible' party endorses her seriously.
When The opponent wins by presenting an incompetent but popular media figure. The answer isn't to lower yourself to their level. It is to show that true politics and capable government can still be.
Unless she proves herself; if you win with Oprah, you lose everything but The election.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 15, 2018, 02:09:25 PM
Oprah may not be the ideal President, but can you deny that she would be a definite improvement over our current President? Granted, nearly anyone would be an improvement, but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't sigh in relief if she won the next election.
I don't expect an ideal president -- the ideal president doesn't exist. No one is going to be everything I want them to be unless it's me myself, and that's not going to happen. So all I expect is a certain amount of intelligence and relevant experience, and broad congruence between their political outlook and philosophy, and mine. There are very few dealbreakers; recognizing women's reproductive autonomy and LGBTQ equal rights are about it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 15, 2018, 02:15:02 PM
Hell, even Crusty the Clown would be an improvement over the current clown.
Bart Simpson is old enough to run ;-)
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 15, 2018, 02:09:25 PM
Oprah may not be the ideal President, but can you deny that she would be a definite improvement over our current President? Granted, nearly anyone would be an improvement, but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't sigh in relief if she won the next election.
That is why y'all let the DNC kick Bernie to the curb, and gave all your kopecks to the the Clinton Foundation. Anything but X ... is why I voted for Obama the second time. And why I didn't vote for Trump either ... but the most recent election I was willing to vote 3rd party, since I want the other two parties to die a horrible (on paper) death.
Quote from: Baruch on May 15, 2018, 07:34:18 PM
That is why y'all let the DNC kick Bernie to the curb, and gave all your kopecks to the the Clinton Foundation. Anything but X ... is why I voted for Obama the second time. And why I didn't vote for Trump either ... but the most recent election I was willing to vote 3rd party, since I want the other two parties to die a horrible (on paper) death.
The DNC and the RNC don't even allow 3rd parties in the national debate since Ross Perot and Ralph Nader ran as spoilers and upset the outcomes. It's odd that the two parties agreed to this. Usually when something works to one party's advantage, the other condemns it, and when the shoe is on the other foot, the party's reactions reverse. But both the RNC and DNC agree that 3rd parties must be neutralized. Odd, because they never agree on anything else.
It's easier to neutralize outsiders than it is to accommodate them. The voices of unwanted voters are muffled as they are forced to choose one of two odious parties, instead of expressing themselves freely. This is not accommodation. It's coercion. Outsiders go from not being able to win an election outright to being denied even a voice of disapproval. Their vote gets recorded as a preference, rather than an objection. Or they can be disheartened completely and stop voting altogether, which is even better.
Since 1963, the CIA/FBI have their dicks up the ass of the DNC and RNC. They have seen the real Zapruder film. Y'all are slaves.
Quote from: trdsf on May 14, 2018, 01:41:53 PM
Julián Castro and John Hickenlooper.
Castro and Hickenlooper will have immediate name recognition. You may not know who they are or what they look like, or what they even stand for, but people will remember their names, probably not to their advantage, however.
I don't know, it just seems hard to think of a president named Hickenlooper. I don't know if American voters will be gung ho for a candidate with a four syllable name. I don't think we've ever had one.
[edit]
Oops! I just remembered Eisenhower. So we've had one out of 45 with a four syllable name. The odds do seem stacked against Hickenlooper, though.
[/edit]
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 16, 2018, 01:43:35 PM
I don't know, it just seems hard to think of a president named Hickenlooper. I don't know if American voters will be gung ho for a candidate with a four syllable name. I don't think we've ever had one.
Eisenhower.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 16, 2018, 01:47:20 PM
Damn, you beat me to it! lol
Presidential trivia was a thing of mine when I was younger. :)
We have had nine monosyllabic Presidential surnames (Polk, Pierce, Grant, Hayes, Taft, Ford, Bush, Bush and You-Know-Who)... for the most part they have run the gamut from the ineffectual to the disastrous, ranking on average 29th out of 44 (counting Cleveland as two terms but one President).
As it turns out, there's an inverse relationship between name length and average ranking -- monosyllabics average 28.89/44, bisyllabics (22 total) average 23.54/44, trisyllabics (12 total) average 17/44, and the lone tetrasyllabic President has an aggregate ranking of 8/44.
Which is more amusing than meaningful, probably. Just fun with statistics, I can't think of any plausible connection.
Quote from: trdsf on May 16, 2018, 03:25:44 PM
Presidential trivia was a thing of mine when I was younger. :)
We have had nine monosyllabic Presidential surnames (Polk, Pierce, Grant, Hayes, Taft, Ford, Bush, Bush and You-Know-Who)... for the most part they have run the gamut from the ineffectual to the disastrous, ranking on average 29th out of 44 (counting Cleveland as two terms but one President).
As it turns out, there's an inverse relationship between name length and average ranking -- monosyllabics average 28.89/44, bisyllabics (22 total) average 23.54/44, trisyllabics (12 total) average 17/44, and the lone tetrasyllabic President has an aggregate ranking of 8/44.
Which is more amusing than meaningful, probably. Just fun with statistics, I can't think of any plausible connection.
There's a causation there, I know it.
Quote from: SGOS on May 16, 2018, 01:39:21 PM
Castro and Hickenlooper will have immediate name recognition. You may not know who they are or what they look like, or what they even stand for, but people will remember their names, probably not to their advantage, however.
I was hoping Castro would be Hillary's VP choice, actually. That might've turned the tale in Florida and Arizona where there are significant Hispanic/Latino communities, and those two states alone, all other things being equal, would have changed the electoral college outcome.
I like both their resumes -- they both have executive experience in government: Hickenlooper as mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado, Castro as mayor of San Antonio and Secretary of HUD, and we're going to need that kind of experience to straighten things out after the mess we're in right now. I don't mind that neither one is a foreign policy guy; we're going to have a hell of a mess at home to clean up, that can be delegated to a suitable Secretary of State.
Since I have connections to both Texas and Colorado, I would be pleased ;-) My Texas connections include Hispanic connections too. Unfortunately "Castro" sounds like that other guy in Cuba. And Hickenlooper is Germanic, same as Eisenhower. I would go with Hickenlooper as P candidate and Castro as VP candidate. Don't worry about foreign policy ... none of our Presidents since Nixon had any experience there, and Nixon relied on Kissinger. Generally I prefer people who have been governors as the lead candidate (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr) though that is a pretty mixed bunch. Neither JFK, Carter, Bush Sr nor Bush Jr had particularly noteworthy military careers .. unlike Eisenhower, but he would be unique in the post WW II world. The military careers of LBJ, Nixon, Reagan were as office boys. Clinton and Obama had no experience at all. Both Clinton and Obama had Valkyries at State.
Quote from: trdsf on May 16, 2018, 04:11:13 PM
I was hoping Castro would be Hillary's VP choice, actually. That might've turned the tale in Florida and Arizona where there are significant Hispanic/Latino communities, and those two states alone, all other things being equal, would have changed the electoral college outcome.
I like both their resumes -- they both have executive experience in government: Hickenlooper as mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado, Castro as mayor of San Antonio and Secretary of HUD, and we're going to need that kind of experience to straighten things out after the mess we're in right now. I don't mind that neither one is a foreign policy guy; we're going to have a hell of a mess at home to clean up, that can be delegated to a suitable Secretary of State.
Not to say names are always election-killers, but "Castro" and "Hickenlooper" (close to "Schicklgruber" aka Hitler) are going to be a problem... Not a good or fair reason, but just saying. A lot of people will go nuts over either.
And that is why I would prohibit monkeys from voting at all.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 17, 2018, 02:21:22 AM
Not to say names are always election-killers, but "Castro" and "Hickenlooper" (close to "Schicklgruber" aka Hitler) are going to be a problem... Not a good or fair reason, but just saying. A lot of people will go nuts over either.
I don't think that many people will.
Although I find a delicious sort of irony in the idea of us electing a President Castro only a couple years after Cuba stopped having one. :D
Quote from: trdsf on May 17, 2018, 10:43:52 AM
I don't think that many people will.
Although I find a delicious sort of irony in the idea of us electing a President Castro only a couple years after Cuba stopped having one. :D
Lee Harvey Oswald would agree.
Quote from: trdsf on May 17, 2018, 10:43:52 AM
I don't think that many people will.
Although I find a delicious sort of irony in the idea of us electing a President Castro only a couple years after Cuba stopped having one. :D
I think you are ignoring bad political names. Consider these"
Dick Swett
Robin Rape
Dick Armey
Hazzard
Dick Mountjoy
Krystal Ball
Jeff Flake
Harry Baals
Kerry Faggotter
Bill Boner
Dave Obey
Wayne Gay
Salmon P. Chase
"Butch" Otter
Tiny Kox
Mike Crapo
Smoke Johnson
Barb Queer
Young Boozer
Mike Hunt
Well, Cavebear, how about these?
Jack Glasscock
Rusty Kuntz
Johnny Dickshot
Dick Bates
Dick Pole
Ed Head
Cannonball Titcomb
Pete LaCock
Butts Wagner
Baseball players one and all. Sure I could come up with more.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2018, 02:41:00 PM
Well, Cavebear, how about these?
Jack Glasscock
Rusty Kuntz
Johnny Dickshot
Dick Bates
Dick Pole
Ed Head
Cannonball Titcomb
Pete LaCock
Butts Wagner
Baseball players one and all. Sure I could come up with more.
Yeah, but they don't stand for election by public approval. I mean, without knowing anything about them, would you rather vote for Studs Manly or Limp Dick? LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on May 19, 2018, 02:50:44 PM
Yeah, but they don't stand for election by public approval. I mean, without knowing anything about them, would you rather vote for Studs Manly or Limp Dick? LOL!
I'd rather vote for Rusty Kuntz.
How about Hugh Jorgan? He'd be a great candidate.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2018, 04:54:35 PM
I'd rather vote for Rusty Kuntz.
I consider the matter settled, LOL!
Not that it will be when Baruch sees it...
If a post exists, he will reply.
Hugh Jass 2018
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2018, 04:54:35 PM
I'd rather vote for Rusty Kuntz.
I know everybody wants to know. He came up with the Chicago White Sox as an outfielder and lasted 7 years; but did not play all that well, hitting only .239 for his career.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2018, 08:16:11 PM
I know everybody wants to know. He came up with the Chicago White Sox as an outfielder and lasted 7 years; but did not play all that well, hitting only .239 for his career.
What kid wouldn't accept 7 years in the majors, even at .239? To play in The Bigs...
Quote from: Cavebear on May 22, 2018, 04:20:00 AM
What kid wouldn't accept 7 years in the majors, even at .239? To play in The Bigs...
The odds of being called up for The Show (major league baseball) for even one day is very very long. Even if the player does not get a hit or get a batter out, they are in the top 1% of baseball players world wide. Hell, I'd even take a job as a bat boy.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 22, 2018, 09:01:49 AM
The odds of being called up for The Show (major league baseball) for even one day is very very long. Even if the player does not get a hit or get a batter out, they are in the top 1% of baseball players world wide. Hell, I'd even take a job as a bat boy.
Well, I think sitting in a bad chair for 3 hours watching a baseball game is pretty abysmal (I like my chair at home and the refrigerator handy), but being a batboy or the foul-ball-grabbers would be pretty interesting!
Quote from: Cavebear on May 22, 2018, 09:14:34 AM
Well, I think sitting in a bad chair for 3 hours watching a baseball game is pretty abysmal (I like my chair at home and the refrigerator handy), but being a batboy or the foul-ball-grabbers would be pretty interesting!
Bad seats at the park can make things a bit boring, I agree. Plus, those are usually in the sun and after 3 hrs one is baked and basted. Then the 3/4 hr traffic jam....................Good seats will cost ya tho--average for a family of 4 with eats is more than $400; too rich for my blood. TV and handy refrig is my way to go.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 22, 2018, 10:52:52 AM
Bad seats at the park can make things a bit boring, I agree. Plus, those are usually in the sun and after 3 hrs one is baked and basted. Then the 3/4 hr traffic jam....................Good seats will cost ya tho--average for a family of 4 with eats is more than $400; too rich for my blood. TV and handy refrig is my way to go.
That's why I watch on MASN TV and make dinner during most games.
I need to get downtown some time this summer when the Mud Hens are in town. I think it's been thirty years since I've seen them play, and while I will cheerily back our Clippers any other time, I was born and raised a Toledo boy.
Quote from: trdsf on May 22, 2018, 12:38:16 PM
I need to get downtown some time this summer when the Mud Hens are in town. I think it's been thirty years since I've seen them play, and while I will cheerily back our Clippers any other time, I was born and raised a Toledo boy.
There is a minor league baseball park nearby. I should go watch them sometime. I hear prices are actually reasonable.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 12:49:00 AM
There is a minor league baseball park nearby. I should go watch them sometime. I hear prices are actually reasonable.
And the modern parks are
really nice. Toledo's is especially highly regarded, and Columbus' is very much on the same model. Box seats here are $16 day of game, $14 in advance, that's *super* reasonable, I think. Hell, right behind home plate is only $20.
And my Hens are 30-15 on the season and leading their division by a
long way, woot!
Quote from: trdsf on May 25, 2018, 12:17:56 PM
And the modern parks are really nice. Toledo's is especially highly regarded, and Columbus' is very much on the same model. Box seats here are $16 day of game, $14 in advance, that's *super* reasonable, I think. Hell, right behind home plate is only $20.
And my Hens are 30-15 on the season and leading their division by a long way, woot!
The Maryland Blue Crabs have the local park. $20 for a homeplate seat wouldn'y kill me ' Da good lord done made me rich! Well, OK, Vanguard Funds can afford me that.