Who will challenge Trump? Who you like?

[GrantM]

Debates are completely scripted for sound bites and gotcha moments. And any president facing such conditions, I would imagine, would consult with advisers or expert others first. I don't want a President who reacts without serious deliberation and consultation.

The candidates should have to go on Joe Rogan's podcast and be interviewed for 3 hours.
Bernie did one hour, the consensus reaction of non-Bernie supporters was it was very valuable.
These "debates" are a terrible format and sound bites they produce are ridiculous.

-g

[davids]

Forget the racism for a moment...how about ageism?

Warren - 70.

Trump - 73

Biden, Bloomberg and Sanders - 78.

On top of this, Sanders just had a heart attack and Trump eats rubbish and is overweight.

70 should be okay, but a 78 year old heart attack victim?

Surely there is someone in the 50-65 age bracket who has the chops to do the job?

There is a senator from Minnesota who's running. Maybe you've heard of her?

Sanders' heart attack deeply concerns me, as does his backpedaling on releasing his complete health records.

OTOH, I've been in a conference room with Warren more than once, and she has more energy and focus than most 40 year olds I know.
Yeah, I'm a fanboy. Especially after she gutted Bloomberg last night, and explained that she had to do it because if she didn't the Republicans surely will.

[davids]

I'm in agreement with the above sentiment. These debates are entertainment, and I can't see for the life of me how they would have any predictive validity for the job of President.

If you were hiring, would you choose the person to get the job via this method? It's really dumb IMO.

I kind of agree and kind of disagree.

Part of the job is the public persona, and the ability to lead through your public appearances and speaking. So it's a fair indicator of that.

[Blue Jays]

"...There is a senator from Minnesota who's running. Maybe you've heard of her?..."

Senator Klobuchar definitely held her ground against Mayor Buttigieg's assertions. She came out ahead, for sure.

"...Especially after she gutted Bloomberg last night, and explained that she had to do it because if she didn't the Republicans surely will..."

Senator Warren was unwavering and clearly assured of herself. Mayor Bloomberg was visibly nervous and appeared to be gulping.

[jclay]

John, you are NEVER wrong. Even if anyone here has an opinion that doesn't align with yours- not facts, opinions, - they are wrong - and Mr Clay is right.

Can we now move on to the topic of this thread?

I wish I was never wrong. On overarching stuff such as this I generally (not always though) don't open my mouth unless I know what I'm talking about or have a pretty firm grasp of First Principles.

It is a fact that very small differences in the vote can give a particular state's EC votes to one candidate or the other. That's not my opinion. That's a statistical, mathematical fact that anybody can verify.

The information in the article I linked is factual. It, too, is easily verified.

It is a trivial logical conclusion from those facts to the notion that a very small number of peeps, in the right state, who would refuse to support a candidate based solely on their race could change the outcome of a presidential election, particularly during times of extreme party polarization. How on Earth is that not a real possibility?

If anybody wants to enlighten me as to where the my factual assertions are, in fact, false, or where my logic fails, feel free to do so.

And yes, since there will be no concord on this subject let's move on but in parting I'll note that you have offered nothing that would undermine the points I made in my previous post; you've merely called me a know-it-all. In trial lawyer speak, you're pounding the table. That's generally reserved for having neither the facts of the case nor the law on your side.

[j44ke]

Jorn, Yes, I certainly did over react. I do apologize. I don't appreciate it when it happens (often) to me, so I do get it.

Thanks Corso.

[Christian Fox]

So if the debates are just doing your homework and showing up prepared with all of the above, Bloomberg and his expensive advisers failed completely. He and his people had to know he was stepping into the lion's den wearing a steak suit, and none of what anyone brought up was unexpected or out of left field, and he looked completely out of his depth.

I laud your criteria, but if that judgment of success also doesn't weigh someone who shows up at least nominally prepared for the haymakers that are coming their way, then that person also would seem woefully unqualified to be President.

I like Bloomberg, and would happily vote for him, but holy shit he looked like a dope on the NDA thing...his debate prep team needs to be fired.

Imagine if he had said: "yup, I am an adult, and I said some stupid, inappropriate things in the past. It was a terrible thing that I made some women uncomfortable with some off-color attempts at humor, and I did my best to make amends with the people I offended. I have worked hard since then to promote both a comfortable working environment and equal opportunity for women. Releasing NDAs at this point would do nothing but open old wounds. It is more informative to focus on how I've learned from my mistakes"

It is impossible to imagine Bloomberg wasn't going to be asked about that stuff. Jeez.

[jclay]

So, who will challenge Trump? Who knows? My crystal ball is a little dim of late.

Sanders seems to be getting traction with a wide demographic. I think he could easily beat Trump in any sort of debate if judged by "independent and informed observers", but that's not exactly our electorate! I hope those opinions (which may be wrong) are not the result of my personal bias for his policy proposals. When I see/hear news, he seems to be doing well wrt lots of different parts of the socio-economic spectrum, excepting the 1% of course.

Warren is no wilting lily either. I keep thinking that if she were offered as prez, she might be able to win, with the right VP (I think THAT is key from both strategy and policy perspectives). I may be wrong but I don't think that she has the same "socialist" moniker baggage that Bernie has yet she offers a constructive, thoughtful and fairly progressive agenda. If everybody agreed that I was always right and allowed me to pick the candidate.....I'd probably pick her to win...I think? There's a shitload I don't know about all these peeps but she seems to be a bit less of a partisan, "apparent idealogical" (Bernie isn't really a socialist) combustion hazard than Bernie.

Pete and Amy? I don't know if they could win. I think they're constructive, thoughtful peeps who would work to do some good. I want to think that they wouldn't, particularly Amy (I don't know how to spell their last names....so Pete and Amy), cave into big biz like Bill Clinton (well, he seemed to really believe it) did re Glass Steagal and doubtless some other stuff.

Bloomberg. Pulling into the driveway this morning and a couple of African Americans were guests on whatever NPR was running at 11ish; they were being asked who they'd support and one of them would support any democratic candidate....except Bloomberg. It seems that Stop and Frisk had directly, negatively impacted his family and he said that Bloomberg was a no-go for him! Wow....from a number of perspectives.

Who's going to go to the mat to reverse Citizen's United (if that's possible), address the out-sized power of lobbyists and severely attenuate regulators who end up running the companies they once regulated, and visa versa? Those seem pretty important foundational issues, too.

Lunch time.

[davids]

I like Bloomberg, and would happily vote for him, but holy shit he looked like a dope on the NDA thing...his debate prep team needs to be fired.

Imagine if he had said: "yup, I am an adult, and I said some stupid, inappropriate things in the past. It was a terrible thing that I made some women uncomfortable with some off-color attempts at humor, and I did my best to make amends with the people I offended. I have worked hard since then to promote both a comfortable working environment and equal opportunity for women. Releasing NDAs at this point would do nothing but open old wounds. It is more informative to focus on how I've learned from my mistakes"

It is impossible to imagine Bloomberg wasn't going to be asked about that stuff. Jeez.

Exactly. Which makes what happened that much more baffling and troubling.

[jclay]

Imagine if he had said: "yup, I am an adult, and I said some stupid, inappropriate things in the past. It was a terrible thing that I made some women uncomfortable with some off-color attempts at humor, and I did my best to make amends with the people I offended. I have worked hard since then to promote both a comfortable working environment and equal opportunity for women. Releasing NDAs at this point would do nothing but open old wounds. It is more informative to focus on how I've learned from my mistakes".

People (generally) just won't do that; it's difficult, as evidenced here. Folks at that strata - I can't recall seeing anybody do it. It would be refreshing though, and smart, and perhaps even honest!

[Matthew Strongin]

He'd have had to have gotten a little more experience under his belt in the meantime.

Apart from age, I wonder what the threshold is for people to deem a candidate experienced enough. Or is it just age? Question for board, not you explicitly.

[mzilliox]

Apart from age, I wonder what the threshold is for people to deem a candidate experienced enough. Or is it just age? Question for board, not you explicitly.

hard to say isn't it? especially given the bizarre double standards we all have. we expect these candidates to be something ideal, but the last guy who got in office is nothing remotely close to ideal, maybe even the opposite of an ideal democratic leader. there are no expectations of him. Trump had zero experience in governance or service, and now we have a shitty president with no concept of how to do a job which requires thinking of others first.

but thats probably less down to experience, and more down to just how he is right?

Not just how much experience do we expect or want, but what kinds? Does that experience have to be in "service?" What are the qualities in a leader we should be looking for?

[al415]

Your guy is badly needed in the Senate until further notice. Thank goodness he seems to understand this and didn't throw his hat in the ring this cycle.

I don't think it's a caricature at all.

“I think you know there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American,”

Sanders on white voters not voting for Black candidates because of their race.

[zachateseverything]

if Mayor Pete were this age the contest would probably be over now. instead we have old farts and a 30 something?
why discuss the rest of it? any name i put here is better than trump for the country, i think all of our chats have determined that.
I mean we all seem to like services and help for those less fortunate, and i assume you all like clean water and pretty places to ride, so the choice isnt hard is it?

The real problem with Mayor Pete is that he's really struggling to make any inroads with the African American community. He's trying, but his attempts at connecting with that community are almost comically inept.

https://theintercept.com/2019/11/15/...-black-voters/

[jclay]

The real problem with Mayor Pete is that he's really struggling to make any inroads with the African American community. He's trying, but his attempts at connecting with that community are almost comically inept.

https://theintercept.com/2019/11/15/...-black-voters/

If Pete runs then he needs Stacey Abrams or someone similar; certainly not a white male, or a white anybody. For that matter, the US needs Stacey Abrams. But a gay man and an African American....that sounds like a bridge too far.
I still think that Sanders/Abrams would win.

[ericpmoss]

Not to be negative and all, but this is another reason I don't want billionaires in politics. It's too easy for them to smooth their own path and block others'.

[JJohnson]

If Pete runs then he needs Stacey Abrams or someone similar; certainly not a white male, or a white anybody. For that matter, the US needs Stacey Abrams. But a gay man and an African American....that sounds like a bridge too far.
I still think that Sanders/Abrams would win.

Sanders/Abrams would be fine but she pretty much endorsed Bloomberg after his donation to her cause. Sanders and Nina Turner would mop shit with Trump/Pence.

[ericpmoss]

Pete needs to not fake endorsements. Otherwise it sounds like a psy-ops exercise in a banana republic. This is the second, or third, one reported.

[BBB]

There is a senator from Minnesota who's running. Maybe you've heard of her?

Sanders' heart attack deeply concerns me, as does his backpedaling on releasing his complete health records.

OTOH, I've been in a conference room with Warren more than once, and she has more energy and focus than most 40 year olds I know.
Yeah, I'm a fanboy. Especially after she gutted Bloomberg last night, and explained that she had to do it because if she didn't the Republicans surely will.

Sure. And there's a 38 year old too.

But, the candidates getting the bulk of the attention, and likely to secure the nomination (on both sides), are in the 70 + brigade.

It is interesting.

It is also interesting that the Democrat pushing to the lead is 78 and recently had a heart attack. The pressure is only going to get worse from here on in. That is a worry.

[jclay]

Sanders/Abrams would be fine but she pretty much endorsed Bloomberg after his donation to her cause. Sanders and Nina Turner would mop shit with Trump/Pence.

Interesting! I did not know that. Maybe Bloomberg/Abrams could win. Don't know but a hopeful sign.