DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

and why does it matter?  Because these trivial anecdotes have a tendency to become fodder for continued ridicule of the candidates.

Who among us does not like making up quotes?

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Steve said:

nan said:
We need to stop worrying about personality and vote based on policy.  Who is going to fight to get us M4A?  Green New Deal?  living wage?  End to regime change wars?  reduction of wealth inequality?   "prison reform"  Who states the specific problems and solutions?  These are not people you are going to be dating or spending Thanksgiving with so who cares about how cute or charming they are?.  Hillary Clinton's problem was not her personality.  

No, that's just wrong.  We have to vote for the candidate of one of the two major parties who is more in line with our views.  That's end.  Full stop.

 And if you're a Democratic primary voter, don't have a sad if your candidate isn't nominated.  It's still important to support the nominated candidate, or else we get Trump again.

 We did that last time and we got Trump.  We need a better candidate this time.  Voter shaming is not enough.  We need someone who gets people excited enough to get off the couch and vote.  That's going to be someone with a great platform who is not beholden to special interests. Too bad the Democratic party would rather lose than let such a person be the nominee.  

No, too many people got a "sad" and voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.  If someone has the perfect platform but is not the nominee of the Dems or Reps, he/she will not be elected.  Full stop.  A vote for any other candidate only serves to help the candidate whose views are further at odds to your own.  It really is that simple.

This sentiment has been repeated over and over with different phrasing. My prediction is that Trump will be re-elected for this reason alone. Again, folks are dug in with their progressive or moderate candidacy hopes. What a shame.

Steve said:

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Steve said:

nan said:
We need to stop worrying about personality and vote based on policy.  Who is going to fight to get us M4A?  Green New Deal?  living wage?  End to regime change wars?  reduction of wealth inequality?   "prison reform"  Who states the specific problems and solutions?  These are not people you are going to be dating or spending Thanksgiving with so who cares about how cute or charming they are?.  Hillary Clinton's problem was not her personality.  

No, that's just wrong.  We have to vote for the candidate of one of the two major parties who is more in line with our views.  That's end.  Full stop.

 And if you're a Democratic primary voter, don't have a sad if your candidate isn't nominated.  It's still important to support the nominated candidate, or else we get Trump again.

 We did that last time and we got Trump.  We need a better candidate this time.  Voter shaming is not enough.  We need someone who gets people excited enough to get off the couch and vote.  That's going to be someone with a great platform who is not beholden to special interests. Too bad the Democratic party would rather lose than let such a person be the nominee.  

No, too many people got a "sad" and voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.  If someone has the perfect platform but is not the nominee of the Dems or Reps, he/she will not be elected.  Full stop.  A vote for any other candidate only serves to help the candidate whose views are further at odds to your own.  It really is that simple.

 It's not a case of the "perfect" platform.  It's the case of corrupted politicians who will support donors over voters.  That's where the anger should be, not on individual voters.  As long as you give the Dems a free pass to cheat and push platforms filled with platitudes and compromise, we will have more and worse Trumps,  This is the reality--and screaming at people or calling them stupid is not going to get them over to your side.

annielou said:
This sentiment has been repeated over and over with different phrasing. My prediction is that Trump will be re-elected for this reason alone. Again, folks are dug in with their progressive or moderate candidacy hopes. What a shame.

 Not sure about that.  The Democrats would have to come up with somebody imaginably awful to lose my vote.

People really need to remember that Trump got 3 million less votes. His "election" was a mathematical fluke.

He's not nearly as powerful a campaigner as people are giving him credit for.

I just do not believe that most voters actually review platforms and make their decision based on a careful analysis of a candidate's collective stances on a set of issues.  Oh, those folks exist but they are but one of a few general types of voters...and may be the smallest percentage. 

I believe that the other main types of voters are:

People who have a visceral reaction to a candidate...there is something about them that they identify with or like/dislike about that person and they tend to go with that.  And, the yardstick is whether they feel the candidate "gets" them.  That may be why how Gillibrand eats chicken matters...is she like me or not?  Do I think that someone who eats fried chicken with a fork and knife really can understand me??  The polls can't capture that because no one wants to admit they are that shallow.

The second is the main issue voter.  There is one central issue that drives them and the candidate that most seems to demonstrate a concern for that issue is their guy/gal.  They are willing to overlook flaws - even major ones - in the candidate if that person demonstrates the most concern for "the big issue".  The research does show that the most potent common denominator among people who supported Trump was a feeling that their "way of life and culture" was being overtaken by immigrants, other cultural groups, etc. Why they thought a person like Trump was going to restore their way to life to prominence seems curious but, then again, nothing else mattered.  Exit polls are unlikely to capture that sort of admission because it tinges of racism, zenophobia, etc..

The third voter is the party line person.  My father would have voted for a reeking dead horse filled with maggots if it was listed on the democratic ticket.  Others would do the same for a Republican. Enough said.

The fourth type is the anti-voter.  There are two sub-types.  The person whose motivation is to toss out any incumbent because "any change is good" and the second is the person whose vote is based more on voting against one candidate than for another. 

The fifth are the idealists and dreamers.    They are drawn to candidates who speak of ideas that seem wonderful to them...at least on paper.  Frankly, some of those ideas might be nice but many simply are impractical in terms of being realized due to the financial or political constraints.  Bernie's bros fall here and I'd also put AOC's people in this group.   Probably nice folks but may be overlooking the reality of the world of politics.

This is only slightly tongue in cheek.  Others may see additional voter types but the above pretty much sums it up for me.   

Norman_Bates said:
I just do not believe that most voters actually review platforms and make their decision based on a careful analysis of a candidate's collective stances on a set of issues.  Oh, those folks exist but they are but one of a few general types of voters...and may be the smallest percentage. 
I believe that the other main types of voters are:

People who have a visceral reaction to a candidate...there is something about them that they identify with or like/dislike about that person and they tend to go with that.  And, the yardstick is whether they feel the candidate "gets" them.  That may be why how Gillibrand eats chicken matters...is she like me or not?  Do I think that someone who eats fried chicken with a fork and knife really can understand me??  The polls can't capture that because no one wants to admit they are that shallow.
The second is the main issue voter.  There is one central issue that drives them and the candidate that most seems to demonstrate a concern for that issue is their guy/gal.  They are willing to overlook flaws - even major ones - in the candidate if that person demonstrates the most concern for "the big issue".  The research does show that the most potent common denominator among people who supported Trump was a feeling that their "way of life and culture" was being overtaken by immigrants, other cultural groups, etc. Why they thought a person like Trump was going to restore their way to life to prominence seems curious but, then again, nothing else mattered.  Exit polls are unlikely to capture that sort of admission because it tinges of racism, zenophobia, etc..
The third voter is the party line person.  My father would have voted for a reeking dead horse filled with maggots if it was listed on the democratic ticket.  Others would do the same for a Republican. Enough said.
The fourth type is the anti-voter.  There are two sub-types.  The person whose motivation is to toss out any incumbent because "any change is good" and the second is the person whose vote is based more on voting against one candidate than for another. 
The fifth are the idealists and dreamers.    They are drawn to candidates who speak of ideas that seem wonderful to them...at least on paper.  Frankly, some of those ideas might be nice but many simply are impractical in terms of being realized due to the financial or political constraints.  Bernie's bros fall here and I'd also put AOC's people in this group.   Probably nice folks but may be overlooking the reality of the world of politics.
This is only slightly tongue in cheek.  Others may see additional voter types but the above pretty much sums it up for me.   

 I would say that the people who have a visceral reaction to the candidate or are voting for a specific gender or race are the ones who are idealists and dreamers.  They put their faith in platitudes and inspirational phases. These are the people who think "Hope and Change" might really mean "Hope and Change" and even when that does not come true sometimes they still think it did.

Progressive candidates, although smeared as unrealistic in the mainstream media, actually have a list of real problems and solutions for every one and a plan to pay for them. They are very aware of how the world works, but they know that if you don't fight for the things you want you will never get them, despite the mainstream candidates poetic words.

Jon Stewart dedicated an entire Daily Show segment to how native New Yorker Donald Trump ate pizza with a knife and fork. Do you think republicans give a **** about that stuff? Why should anyone? 

ridski said:
Jon Stewart dedicated an entire Daily Show segment to how native New Yorker Donald Trump ate pizza with a knife and fork. Do you think republicans give a **** about that stuff? Why should anyone? 

I'm not sure why anyone does.  But they do.  They become convinced that Al Gore is an insufferable prig because he sighed during a debate, or that John Kerry is an effete elitist because he "looks French," and Obama is out of touch with "real Americans" because he puts dijon mustard on a burger.  And now we've got NYT columnists calling Corey Booker "pathetically eager" because he tried to speak Spanish to a reporter.

A couple of people are downplaying this, but it's real.  It's called framing.  And the pundits have consistently framed Democrats in a very predictable way -- phony, grasping, out of touch, elitist, dishonest, smug, condescending, etc.  In short, insufferable people that "real Americans" should find distasteful.  

And as a result of the framing, voters' perceptions of the candidates' words and actions get interpreted in predictable ways.  The confident, prepared Hillary Clinton ends up perceived as smug, overconfident, condescending and elitist.  Why did so many people dislike Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton?  Because the mainstream pundits prepped people to interpret everything they did and said as phony, elitist and condescending.

I will not repost the post by Norman at 6:39PM yesterday but I found it close to perfect.

The Hew Hampshire Primary has outsized importance. The New Hampshire voters expect the candidate to visit them personally, in Diners and similar places, and connect on a personal level. Policies are secondary.

On Election Day a significant number of voters would be unable to accurately describe the candidates' policies or positions.

ml1 said:

ridski said:
Jon Stewart dedicated an entire Daily Show segment to how native New Yorker Donald Trump ate pizza with a knife and fork. Do you think republicans give a **** about that stuff? Why should anyone? 

I'm not sure why anyone does.  But they do.  They become convinced that Al Gore is an insufferable prig because he sighed during a debate, or that John Kerry is an effete elitist because he "looks French," and Obama is out of touch with "real Americans" because he puts dijon mustard on a burger.  And now we've got NYT columnists calling Corey Booker "pathetically eager" because he tried to speak Spanish to a reporter.

A couple of people are downplaying this, but it's real.  It's called framing.  And the pundits have consistently framed Democrats in a very predictable way -- phony, grasping, out of touch, elitist, dishonest, smug, condescending, etc.  In short, insufferable people that "real Americans" should find distasteful.  
And as a result of the framing, voters' perceptions of the candidates' words and actions get interpreted in predictable ways.  The confident, prepared Hillary Clinton ends up perceived as smug, overconfident, condescending and elitist.  Why did so many people dislike Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton?  Because the mainstream pundits prepped people to interpret everything they did and said as phony, elitist and condescending.

 Hilary was criticized for being "too prepared" for the debates.

Your liberal media in action.

drummerboy said:

 Hilary was criticized for being "too prepared" for the debates.
Your liberal media in action.

 Was that before or after it came out that she was given the questions in advance?

I always take advice on how “native” New Yorkers should eat their pizza from guys from Lawrenceville.

I think at least some of this overanalysis of every little thing a candidate does is fueled by the 5 second news (Tweet) cycle we're living in. The news is never off the air for even a few seconds so sometimes to avoid repeating the same stuff as museum the reporters are forced to spew out inanities to try and stay ahead.

It's complicated by the fact that there are dozens of personal cameras rolling at every press event. If a reporter doesn't cover every stupid little thing that happens they risk appearing to get scooped by someone posting a picture to Instagram of candidate scratching their butt. If I was followed around by 20 people with iPhones hoping to have their Tweet trend I'm sure they could catch me doing something. So Corey Booker's goof on Swiss vs Spanish actually becomes news.

So yeah this crap has been happening for a while but I think it's reached a fever pitch we couldn't have imagined in 2004.

mrincredible said:
I think at least some of this overanalysis of every little thing a candidate does is fueled by the 5 second news (Tweet) cycle we're living in. The news is never off the air for even a few seconds so sometimes to avoid repeating the same stuff as museum the reporters are forced to spew out inanities to try and stay ahead.
It's complicated by the fact that there are dozens of personal cameras rolling at every press event. If a reporter doesn't cover every stupid little thing that happens they risk appearing to get scooped by someone posting a picture to Instagram of candidate scratching their butt. If I was followed around by 20 people with iPhones hoping to have their Tweet trend I'm sure they could catch me doing something. So Corey Booker's goof on Swiss vs Spanish actually becomes news.
So yeah this crap has been happening for a while but I think it's reached a fever pitch we couldn't have imagined in 2004.

it's amplified somewhat.  But the pile on that killed Gore's electoral chances happened before smartphones and before most people were internet-connected.  The volume is a lot more, but the triviality of the substance has been around for decades.

remember George H.W. Bush and the scanner?

I think it's amplified a lot, not just a little. And the Gore sigh happened during the one-on-one debate with W. We're a year from primaries for corn's sake!

Funny thing in my mind is rather than a candidate seeming overeager I think a lot of reporters are. They know how hungry people are for news about anyone who can unseat the reigning mistake in the White House.

mrincredible said:
I think it's amplified a lot, not just a little. And the Gore sigh happened during the one-on-one debate with W. We're a year from primaries for corn's sake!
Funny thing in my mind is rather than a candidate seeming overeager I think a lot of reporters are. They know how hungry people are for news about anyone who can unseat the reigning mistake in the White House.

I'm actually more optimistic about the amplification of news and the multiplicity of outlets and voices.  There are a lot more people criticizing the coverage and pointing out the biases than there ever were 20+ years ago.  At one time, it was only a handful of inside the Beltway people who got to define the candidates.  But we do need to continue to be vigilant, and do our own little parts among the people we know.  That's why I'm pointing all this out.  At this time next year, when one of the Democrats is the front runner, maybe I can convince a few people not to buy in to the media narrative that the person is an over ambitious elitist phony.  Because I can predict right here right now that that's going to be the narrative, no matter who the nominee is -- the Democrat is a big, fat phony!

I liked Gore and I wanted him to win in 2000 but his sigh was not singular. It was multiple sighs over the course of the debate that showed his condescension and scorn for Bush. 

One can consider that trivial and something the media unfairly blew out of proportion, but in my book the blowback was warranted. Gore actually turned his intelligence advantage over Bush into a disadvantage by coming across as a pompous a--.   

Bush was lying his face off in those debates. Which of course was a preview of his presidency. But that's what we get when people are more bothered by one candidate's exasperated sighs than they are by the lies that caused the exasperation. 

NY Billionaire v. NY "Billionaire" ?

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/13/michael-bloomberg-trump-2020-1167159

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/12/cory-booker-2020-vice-president-1167284

STANV said:

NY Billionaire v. NY "Billionaire" ?


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/13/michael-bloomberg-trump-2020-1167159





Pandering or making sense?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/12/cory-booker-2020-vice-president-1167284

 Cory Booker appeared not only sincere but smart in the interview. Many of the candidates that are running are probably hoping for a VP spot if they can't make the top of the ticket. So with half the candidates in his party, female he is wise to make such a choice. Also, what could he possibly say, "No, I'd never consider it?"

More surprising was his candor about his compassion for animals. He went out on a limb and said he hoped for an end to chemical testing on animals. As someone who argued that topic for most of my life, it is the most difficult issue in animal advocacy. People will begrudgingly skip the circus, and perhaps the fur coat, but calling for an end to animal testing meets the most resistance, so good for him, and I hope that is enough penance for those who complain about his support from Big Pharma. I'd say the wallet is now closed.

He is also known to be vegan and if he decides to take on the ranch and factory farming lobby, he will really have a battle. But, with the push for a Green New Deal among progressives, he can walk the walk as factory farming contributes greatly to global warming.

https://www.ecowatch.com/how-factory-farming-contributes-to-global-warming-1881690535.html

nan said:

Too bad the Democratic party would rather lose than let such a person be the nominee.  

 You should really stop saying this.  

1. It’s not true. 

2. You don’t believe it to be true. 

3.  You won’t convince anyone of anything. 

4.  It makes you look like a 5 year old having a temper tantrum. 

ml1 said:
remember George H.W. Bush and the scanner?

 this is one of the few times the Republican gets unjustly trashed for trivia.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bush-scanner-demonstration/

Red_Barchetta said:

nan said:

Too bad the Democratic party would rather lose than let such a person be the nominee.  

 You should really stop saying this.  
1. It’s not true. 
2. You don’t believe it to be true. 
3.  You won’t convince anyone of anything. 
4.  It makes you look like a 5 year old having a temper tantrum. 

 I do believe it and it has been proven multiple times.  There is documentation of establishment Democrats and the DNC sabotaging the campaigns of progressive democrats, even when they are the popular choice.  Look at Medicare for All--which polls at 70% including Republicans.  This should be a no-brainer choice for the Dem platform.  It would get people excited to get off the couch and vote.  But, they don't--a few pretend to be for it, waffling most of the time.  Cause they are controlled by their donors and they would rather not push for a popular idea and lose than fight for what voters want. 

Other examples:

Secretly Taped Audio Reveals Democratic Leadership Pressuring Progressive to Leave Race

The DCCC's Long, Ugly History of Sabotaging Progressives

http://inthesetimes.com/features/dccc_left_progressive_challengers_laura_moser_campaign_finance.html

booker may be a vegan and care about animals but he rejected cheaper prescriptions from Canada and is in the pocket of Big Pharma. Not so progressive, IMO. https://billmoyers.com/story/reason-booker-big-pharma-dems-no-excuse/

Lovesagoodsale said:
booker may be a vegan and care about animals but he rejected cheaper prescriptions from Canada and is in the pocket of Big Pharma. Not so progressive, IMO. https://billmoyers.com/story/reason-booker-big-pharma-dems-no-excuse/

 He also hates public schools.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/02/cory-booker-charters-public-schools-president

Should there be another thread called "Democrats!  Trash the candidates who aren't your fav"?

South_Mountaineer said:
Should there be another thread called "Democrats!  Trash the candidates who aren't your fav"?

 It's called vetting the candidates who will be facing Trump.  I don't see the sense of not exposing a candidate's record.  Maybe if we had done a better job of that with Clinton, we might not have lost.