POLITICS Democratic Nominee 2020 Lollapalooza

I think New Hampshire is critical for him given his name recognition in New England.

 

Winning the Iowa Caucus seems a curse, anyway.

 

Also fair. I typed without thinking.

New strategy - New Hampshire and SC. Win those and it's game on.

 

From the Republican with no home view point, he seems like a standard east coast Democrat that won't torpedo the economy.

 

the thing is, where are Deval's votes going to come from? it probably isn't from sanders or warren. Deval is going to be eating up Mayor Pete, Biden, and the rest more. if he catches on, it might be a positive for the further left candidates just due to further splitting up the moderate bloc.

 

He's sure death to Biden.

 

But Michelle has been clear she isn't running.

 

You know it's the poll leader, but I would love a Trump vs M Obama race in some ways. In others I'm sure it would make me hate my fellow man.

 

I'm with you on all counts. I fear it would be a new level of ugly. But I have zero doubt she'd win the D nomination with ease were she to enter.

 

The Bernie Brigade is already on Patrick.

 

I'm waiting to see her spend all her time in Wisconsin.

 

I'm pretty sure you are correct, but I've never understood what's behind the notion that a spouse is a legitimate candidate seemingly by default.

 

It is an odd notion and not a qualifier for office in a traditional sense. We've entered a new paradigm, though. Michelle benefits greatly from her spouse, but she's also intelligent, excellent communicator and that "it" factor which I see as a combination of charisma and authenticity while lacking much of politician fake-e-ocity.

We talk a lot about qualifications for office (rightfully so), but I believe we vastly undervalue the importance of other attributes. A candidate can have years of political experience in state or federal legislature, but if they have no warmth, are unrelatable or DC fake they're not likely to go very far. Look only to the last two Presidents and see how much a part experience played. It's wildly overrated.

 

I think it is wildly underrated. The idea of the statesmen is a dead one and we end up with a bunch of yahoos that know nothing about governing.

I voted for Obama but was ultimately disappointed in him. Part of that is the environment we have these days, but also in his arrogance once he got elected. He was never able to make a compromise on much of anything (again partly because the Senate and House just said "NO" to anything he said).

Trump, again, just because he is a 'business man' doesn't mean he can run a country. His White House has been a complete cluster[uck fay] from all accounts.

W himself was a complete boob, and I voted for him as well, and he only had a few years experience in government, though he had his dad to lean on.

Clinton was the last one that had a lot of experience (long time governor of Arkansas) and his was the last Presidency that I thought had any kind of outcome to it.

 

We'll just have to disagree on what makes someone qualified. She might as well be Lurleen Wallace imo.

Edit: I do agree that some of the traditional qualifications are held in higher regard than they should be. I just need something to hang my hat on besides charm, intelligence, and a name. Kim Kardashian has that, and I don't see her name being thrown out like Michelle Obama.

 

Fair points, but to be clear I'm talking about overrated with the electorate. In terms of experience I'd lean to governorship over DC tenure as a general rule.

 

My wife would make a decent politician, she was in politricks for a long time. I would be 100 times worse than Trump. You don't like my policies? Eat a bag of [Richards], [uck fay]face.

 

@warhammer @NorrisAlan - respectfully, you're both living too much in the past. I don't personally disagree with either of you on the importance of qualification. What I'm pointing out is we've moved farther away from that as an electorate. It may swing back, but for now we're firmly in the new.

 

See my edit above. I'll gladly live in the past if living in the new means electing someone on a name and an image alone. Sometimes change is not good.

 

100%. Exactly why I identify as a pragmatic progressive. Change for the sake of change is fraught with risk, as can be rapid major change. Some societal issues clearly warrant rapid change, but others require phasic progression to an end goal. Forcing change could blow up a great idea and set it back years. Whether we like it or not even a great change with widespread benefit could face failure if forced before enough people are ready.