Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
My most important criterion for anyone running for President is that they know what they are talking about, in detail, with credit given to people who have been working in the relevant fields. I want them to be willing to listen to experts and heed their advice over ideology and populism. They also need to be good communicators: able to break down complex topics in ways that are understandable to the average listener.
Obama was a fantastic communicator. His greatest weakness, in my opinion, was in surrounding himself with advisers who refused to look outside the White House circle-jerk, which caused him to be insulated from a lot of important information (such as how the GOP and its pet media empire were turning people against Obamacare).
Relevant to that, Warren's greatest weakness as a candidate is her animosity towards Wall Street, which still holds a fantastic amount of power by manipulating the purse strings of the country. Don't get me wrong: I want to see that power broken so we can have a more egalitarian approach to economics, but until it is, they'll be terrifying enemies for anyone trying to enact actual meaningful change.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 21st 2019 at 10:24:42 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"An interview with Castro was playing in my workplace’s break room a few days ago. He’s a former part of the Obama administration, and as far as I can tell seems fairly similar to Obama in terms of his goals and how he presents himself. Very charming and affable, but not the most left leaning of the group.
And yet he still won.
Regardless, I don't know anything about Castro so unless he turns out to be a sleeper hit I'll prefer Gillibrand, Warren, or Harris.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangKamala Harris has some backstory as California's attorney general that might be a problem. Warren's performance in the 2018 Senate election might be a bad omen as well as I discussed before.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanNot sure if it was intentional or not, but that CNN article gave Gabbard the middle finger by calling Harris the third Democratic woman to run, after Warren and Gillibrand.
I was going to dig up a Pod Save America interview with Castro, but upon listening to it again it's mostly vague generalities. The only unique concrete plan he had was universal pre-K. A worthy goal to be sure, but other than that he seems to be running on Obama's legacy. Even the podcast hosts in a later show couldn't really find a definitive answer to "Why him? Why now?"
I'm aware of Harris' past, I just think the good outweighs the bad.
What 2018 performance of Warren's do you have in mind?
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jan 21st 2019 at 10:06:21 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangNone of them are my ideal candidate. But then, I've long since abandoned any hope of having an "ideal" President. Harris, Gillibrand, Warren...these three are probably the closest even though I've got misgivings about all three. I don't know enough about Castro and to hell with Gabbard.
Disgusted, but not surprisedI think this will be Castro's biggest problem: he seems to be a Democratic analogue to the Bushes, running on the legacy of a popular former President rather than on any unique qualifications of his own. And he doesn't even have the benefit of having been a VP or major cabinet official under Obama.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 21st 2019 at 10:09:21 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I can believe it, this is the first I'm actually hearing about the guy and so far I'm not impressed.
Ah, I see.
That is concerning, still, it could be nothing.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jan 21st 2019 at 10:16:30 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangYep, it's the past election performance
.
For me it's mostly Harris, Gillibrand and Klobuchar. OK performance and not too bad drawbacks. Everybody else is only second choice due to too many drawbacks (My concern with Beto that also extends to Sherrod Brown
) and Tulsi Gabbard needs to be primaried.
One thing is for certain: the 2020 primaries are going to be very interesting. None of the candidates are perfect, but none of the candidates save Gabbard is totally unacceptable (because to hell with Gabbard).
And of course, any of them are better than Trump.
Edited by M84 on Jan 21st 2019 at 11:26:48 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedWhich makes her perfectly fine in my eyes, as long as she keeps in mind that those professions are still necessary, even though they ought to have less power and prominence than they currently do.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Honestly, I would list Bloomberg as totally unacceptable.
Beyond his shitty pro-business policies (no, we don't need a "fiscally conservative socially liberal" President) he threatened to run Independent if Sanders won in 2016.
I don't like Sanders but that's really awful, it really shows what kind of person Bloomberg is. And that's not one that should be President.
Exactly this.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jan 21st 2019 at 10:31:03 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangFound a more detailed analysis of where Warren stands with different voters:
But she potentially has a higher ceiling because she’s more likely to win support from Party Loyalists, given that she’s a Democrat rather than an independent, and that she doesn’t have baggage from 2016. She’s also ever-so-slightly to Sanders’s right in a way that places her closer to the median Democratic voter.
The most likely winning coalition for Warren, in fact, probably involves the three predominately white groups: The Left, Party Loyalists and Millennials and Friends. (One of the things that helps her with millennials is that Warren has a bigger and better social media presence than you might assume.) Her path is tricky; she probably needs Sanders to founder. And that’s before getting into the gender dynamics surrounding her campaign and whether misogyny might hurt her chances. But she has a head start, having been the first of the big names to take official steps toward running and having hired key staffers in Iowa and elsewhere, which could give her more time to figure out a winning approach.
Keep in mind, this is where she stood at the time 538 put out this chart, Jan 14. Obviously what she says and does over the campaign will change how much people favor her.
![]()
Eh, I think a faux progressive Hindu Nationalist homophobe is far worse than Bloomberg's lolbertarian bullshit.
See, my concern is that I don't think she does. She's spent so much of her political career demonizing them.
Edited by M84 on Jan 21st 2019 at 11:50:44 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedOh certainly, just because he's also unacceptable doesn't mean he's worse.
He's less awful but in my view still completely unacceptable.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangIs this aimed at something specific?
Because there is a massive difference between "imperfect" and "pseudo-Libertarian/actual neoliberal who threatened to spoiler for Trump".
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

I wouldn't worry about the current batch of candidates too much. Aren't usually the once who announce first the ones who are gone in the end? Other than Warren, I don't think that any of them has a realistic shot.