Kansas Crimson

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:40 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:17 am I have no idea if it even will. I hope Bloomberg does not actually want to win the presidency (and, accordingly, would not completely fuck the race in Trump's favor by, directly or indirectly, dividing the non-Trump vote).

But, power attracts, man!

It's interesting. To date, in the era of the modern presidency, we have never elected a president whose sole claim to the office was "I'm not the other guy." Kerry ran on that platform, as did Romney. And both lost, in part, because of the inadequacy of such a campaign. Trump certainly got a boost from the anti-Hillary contingent, but he brought his own die-hard fans as well. The closest we've come, I think, was the Dems convincing Johnson to drop out in '68. Beyond that, though, all elected presidents have had a forward-looking, positive agenda (loosely defined).

Other than Sanders, are there any Democrats in the race who can make the case that they have an agenda they believe in? Or are they all vying for the title of "Not Trump?"

I think that was Biden's biggest failing. He was a reluctant candidate who got in simply because donors and backers told him he could be elected in an anti-Trump/proximity-to-Obama race. He never could make a case for himself, separate from being Not-Trump.

The same, I think, goes for Bloomberg. Q: "Who are you?" A: "I'm the New York billionaire who is NOT Trump!" Oooookaaaay. And why do we care? I dunno.

Yang had a purpose and an identity distinct from Trump. And Sanders, obviously, has been pushing this same agenda for decades. But is there anyone else who can stand on his/her own?

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:44 am Pete seems capable of it, but he's listening too much to the focus groups

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:48 am

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:44 am Pete seems capable of it, but he's listening too much to the focus groups

I think Pete is the focus groups. I don't think he has a serious policy bone in his body, and I don't think he has the institutional bona fides to even understand what needs to be done.

He seems like a terrific high-energy, high-minded VP to run alongside someone with real chops.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:51 am Warren certainly can. I think she's whip-smart, savvy and principled. If you could guarantee me that, during a Warren presidency, Congress would always be split, I'd be 100000% behind her.

I dunno.

I'm not buying it. Her policy agenda is lifted mostly from Sanders, while her rhetoric is more aggressively anti-Trump than his. I think voters are sensing the shallowness of her political persona.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:54 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:48 am

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:44 am Pete seems capable of it, but he's listening too much to the focus groups

I think Pete is the focus groups. I don't think he has a serious policy bone in his body, and I don't think he has the institutional bona fides to even understand what needs to be done.

He seems like a terrific high-energy, high-minded VP to run alongside someone with real chops.

Pete strikes me as precisely the candidate that McKinsey [s]would tell you to choose[/s] is choosing as your nominee.

Grandma wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:13 am

lobster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:50 pm Youtube, is by far, the most important site in the world for spreading information. If you want to get the most accurate pulse on what people are feeling towards a subject, it's your best bet. Gabbard and Yang were extremely popular on Youtube, as is Sanders. Guess who's not popular on Youtube? Biden, Butt, and the rest.

Lulz?

"Youtube, is by far, the most important site in the world for spreading information"?
It very well might be.
You're knowledgable about Youtube so will you please tell me what percentage of the of people posting and viewing SHIT on Youtube have ZERO knowledge about politics and what percentage you feel have more knowledge than someone who rarely views Youtube videos involving politics but gets their information from other sources.
I can assure you that should I choose, there are many other methods for me to educate myself besides watching Youtube videos. Including but not limited to access to research the "public" does not have. Before you smirk and roll your eyes, realize I have worked for Mayors, a Governor, and a President.
Like I said, Yang and Gabbard were (as you pointed out numerous times) extremely popular on Youtube to the point of your insisting because if it, they had a strong chance to win the nomination. That simply was not true. Right?
Now all of a sudden you are saying Sanders is popular on Youtube. Seems based on Yang's and Gabbard's popularity on Youtube, that and $2.25 doesn't get me (and Bernie?) much more than a ride on a bus.

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:04 am I dunno. If he can sit through a 25 minute video of a person rambling he might have a longer attention span than most. I know i wouldnt even try to pay attention to those videos.

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:22 am Sorry. Got WAY off topic there. My bad.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:48 am

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:44 am Pete seems capable of it, but he's listening too much to the focus groups

I think Pete is the focus groups. I don't think he has a serious policy bone in his body, and I don't think he has the institutional bona fides to even understand what needs to be done.

He seems like a terrific high-energy, high-minded VP to run alongside someone with real chops.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:59 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:59 pm

Grandma wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:47 pm

I laughed.
Shame every Democratic candidate won't quit tonight.

It's gonna be Burnie until the DNC figures out a way to screw him out of the nomination yet again. Then it will be Bad Touch Joe.

so what’s your belittling nickname for Trump and his history of inappropriate contact?

chiknbut wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:01 am

Grandma wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:13 am

lobster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:50 pm Youtube, is by far, the most important site in the world for spreading information. If you want to get the most accurate pulse on what people are feeling towards a subject, it's your best bet. Gabbard and Yang were extremely popular on Youtube, as is Sanders. Guess who's not popular on Youtube? Biden, Butt, and the rest.

Lulz?

"Youtube, is by far, the most important site in the world for spreading information"?
It very well might be.
You're knowledgable about Youtube so will you please tell me what percentage of the of people posting and viewing SHIT on Youtube have ZERO knowledge about politics and what percentage you feel have more knowledge than someone who rarely views Youtube videos involving politics but gets their information from other sources.
I can assure you that should I choose, there are many other methods for me to educate myself besides watching Youtube videos. Including but not limited to access to research the "public" does not have. Before you smirk and roll your eyes, realize I have worked for Mayors, a Governor, and a President.
Like I said, Yang and Gabbard were (as you pointed out numerous times) extremely popular on Youtube to the point of your insisting because if it, they had a strong chance to win the nomination. That simply was not true. Right?
Now all of a sudden you are saying Sanders is popular on Youtube. Seems based on Yang's and Gabbard's popularity on Youtube, that and $2.25 doesn't get me (and Bernie?) much more than a ride on a bus.

Gutman, I applaud your effort in trying to reason with Lobby. Sorry to point out, once again, that he just doesn't care. At best he's a troll, just trying to get a rise out of people on this board. At worst, he's a completely uninformed know-it-all who's sometimes correct - bad combination right there.

I know this because he doesn't even approach the fact that Youtube is also one of the biggest tools of misinformation. He either doesn't know or doesn't care. I'm afraid his attention span is so short that he's impervious to logic.

He's also completely unaware of the fact that, in the words of the great Serpent Head James Carville, there's a word for a politician who counts on the "youth vote," aka those who get their news from Facebook or Youtube - Loser.

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:52 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:48 am

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:44 am Pete seems capable of it, but he's listening too much to the focus groups

I think Pete is the focus groups. I don't think he has a serious policy bone in his body, and I don't think he has the institutional bona fides to even understand what needs to be done.

He seems like a terrific high-energy, high-minded VP to run alongside someone with real chops.

If Donald Trump can figure out wharneeds to bedine despite firing all respectable advisors and instead choosing to surround himself with clowns, then Pete or anyone else running can figure out what needs to be done by hiring competent advisors.

I dont worry about any of the top Dems being able to "figure it out". Policy writers are hired.

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:58 am I haven't followed that closely yet because I think primaries are irrelevant to me being from Kansas and we don't really have primaries worth a damn.

But I do think it'll be interesting to see what happens in South Carolina and Nevada. A lot more minorities in those states compared to Iowa and New Hampshire. Those 2 states will really begin the narrowing down of the field.

Pete struggles with minorities. But he's been steady the last few months.

Warren has had the wheels really fall off. Needs a strong performance or two coming up to regain momentum.

Klobuchar had a well publicized conviction of a 16 year old African American boy being sentenced to life for shooting an 11 year old girl. But she's riding a huge momentum wave and is the best debater on the democrat side. She'd be the best person to go head-to-head with Trump.

Sanders is the top guy for minorities. He's always had their back. He could take over the Warren voters if she drops out. But Warren voters might go to Klobuchar to support a woman in the race.