6
   

BREAKING NEWS: Water is wet ... and Senator Warren is officially running for 2020

 
 
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 07:59 am
BREAKING NEWS
Elizabeth Warren is entering the 2020 presidential campaign, the first top Democrat in what is likely to be a wide-open primary race.
Quote:
Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat and a sharp critic of big banks and unregulated capitalism, entered the 2020 race for president on Monday. She’s the first major candidate in what is likely to be a long and crowded primary marked by ideological and generational divisions in a Democratic Party desperate to beat President Trump.


 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 09:32 am
As I've posted elsewhere, she would not be my first choice, but if she ended getting nominated she would get my vote.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 11:23 am
I like Warren on the issues I have heard her talk about. I haven't read enough about her stances on foreign issues.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 12:01 pm
If running for president were merely a matter of selecting an honest and intelligent person with experience in public service, Warren would be a good candidate. So was Sanders. The reality, unfortunately, is that we're in the USA in 2019 and rationalism isn't really applicable. Huge swathes of the electorate will reject Warren because she went to Harvard, she claimed to be part native american, and — as unbelievable as it might seem — she's a woman. Should she win the nomination, I'd have no trouble voting for her, but I do wonder how electable she really is.

The other problem is not so much about her specifically, but I think it should be pointed out that when you have 20 contenders running for the same office in a series of primaries you often get skewed results. Trump's path to victory is a good example — he had name recognition and a huge fan-base of slack-jawed reality TV watchers which gave him a large core of loyal support as better-qualified candidates got winnowed out in the process:

Quote:
When Donald Trump first announced that he would seek the Republican nomination, many journalists dismissed his Presidential bid as a publicity stunt. The Huffington Post said that it planned to cover the candidate in its entertainment section. “Our reason is simple: Trump’s campaign is a sideshow,” readers were told. “We won’t take the bait. If you are interested in what The Donald has to say, you’ll find it next to our stories on the Kardashians and The Bachelorette.”

Journalists weren’t the only ones who failed to see what was happening; until a few years ago, many scholars of American politics held that the reforms of the nineteen-sixties and seventies did little to shift the balance of power away from political élites. Although the wider use of primaries radically changed the process by which candidates were selected, the Party’s establishment retained tremendous influence through its ability to grant or withhold endorsements and access to donors. The most influential book on the topic was “The Party Decides” (2008), and its title was its thesis: that a party’s “invisible primary” picks the front-runners before the voters start to pay attention.

As a result, political scientists were even less likely than journalists to take Trump seriously. Since he did not have visible support from Republican Party élites, they could not fathom the idea that he might have a chance. And yet Trump quickly took a commanding lead in the polls, and rode his fervent support all the way to the White House. In 2016, the Republican Party did not decide; it was conquered in a cruel blitzkrieg, then rapidly remade in the image of its captor.

Is More Democracy Always Better Democracy?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 02:49 pm
Just saw this headline:
Warren Announces Presidential Run, Vows to Fight Corporate Power

If she can live up to this promise, I will be more supportive than I had expected to be.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 03:00 pm
if there's no alternative, ok

I sure hope there's an alternative under the age of 50

edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 03:02 pm
If we judge by age we disqualify ourselves.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 03:04 pm
@edgarblythe,
Absolutely.

I haven't voted for anyone over the age of 40 for close to 10 years now. I used to vote up to 50, but thought better of it.

__

Wrinklies are fine mentors but I'd rather be lead by the young. It is their future that we fucked up - they deserve to take over before we **** up even more.
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 04:17 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
I hope there's an alternative under the age of 50.


Similar thinking here; although, I'd allow it up to age 60.

Of course experience can be praised and held up as a good thing; but, decades of experience can be a disadvantage. The young people in particular would be more likely to show up for a candidate who looked parental as opposed to grandparenty or older.

Some would argue that the appeal in 2008 was Obama not being Caucasian. Equally important, possibly more so among first or second time voters was that he was younger. That I believe was also the appeal of Bill Clinton after 8 years of the grandpas.

Not feeling too hopeful with the current crowd. Which will doom them, the geriatric crew or the too wide field to select from? Too many candidates can create a generalized anxiety and/or apathy among potential voters.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 04:33 pm
@ehBeth,
I think it would largely depend on the generation. Some generations seem to do better (not sure why) than others. The young ones now seem to be better than the ones of the nineties and the younger kids now (Parkland students...) seem to be even more informed and enlightened. The ones who seem to have come of age during Newt Gingrich's time, seem to have been all power hungry greedy young kids.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 05:11 pm
@ehBeth,
I'm not sure why someone in their thirties is a better candidate for President than someone in their late 40's/early 50's (think Obama or Bill Clinton). I know the opinions I held in my 30's were strongly held but not always well considered.

As for Warren, I think she gets an A+ for economic inequality, C- on civil rights and foreign policy. I think she can get up to speed on foreign policy but she really doesn't seem all that interested in civil rights although I'm sure she'll pay lip service and nominate good people to the right places.
Sturgis
 
  3  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 05:17 pm
@engineer,
A difficulty with limiting to under 40 takes place with the Presidential elections, seeing as how the person has to be at least 35 years of age (in the US).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 05:19 pm
Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. was not yet 43 years of age when he succeeded William McKinley to become the youngest president in our history. John Kennedy was 43 years old when he was elected president. I see no reason why people under the age of 50 cannot make good presidents. I see no reason why someone who is 35 years of age, the statutory minimum, cannot make a good president.

President Plump is 72 years old--and he's a moron. Age is not a determinant in my never humble opinion.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2018 08:59 pm
I have already expressed my strong support for the Warren candidacy. I like her economic message.

On this strange tangent of age... I prefer someone older rather than younger. I am more experienced in my fifties than I was in my thirties and forties. For president I would prefer someone in their sixties to someone in their forties.
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » BREAKING NEWS: Water is wet ... and Senator Warren is officially running for 2020
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/20/2019 at 11:22:16