04-20-2018, 04:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2018, 05:14 PM by Classic-Xer.)
(04-20-2018, 12:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:You should pay less attention to what is said by a Democrat and pay more attention to what the Democrat does/did with their power, what the Democrat makes/made for a living salary wise to do political work and ask where the Democrat got all their extra income from that made them so rich like the Clinton's? Why didn't I vote for Bill Clinton? I didn't vote for Bill Clinton because I believed that he was a criminal and I viewed him as being a criminal. He was a decent, smart, talented, decent looking and likeable criminal for a criminal but he was still viewed as a criminal by me. Hilary...Well, I'll just say she didn't have the likable qualities that her life long partner in crime had going for him. However, I'll give her credit for being the brain in their relationship. How much money did the Clinton's make from being involved with shady activities, business dealings, political kick backs, back room/under the table deals, doing work for foreign interests broad and so forth? Multiple millions for sure.(04-20-2018, 09:23 AM)David Horn Wrote:(04-19-2018, 03:15 PM)Another Xer Wrote: Disunity among Democrats is typically one of the most overhyped narratives of the last many decades. Policy-wise, there was not much difference between Hillary and Bernie. Much of the supposed division between the two, I think, was unique to the individuals. Bernie, an Independent running as an old fashioned liberal and Hillary Clinton, who is a lightning rod for differing opinions. Replace those names with Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren and you get the same minimal policy differences without all the rancor.
Democrats all pretty much stand for the same things - the difference is the degree to which they want to go and the emphasis on certain things (i.e. is campaign finance reform the OMG #1 issue or is it lower down on the list of priorities).
We'll have to disagree on this. The first Neoliberal Democrats came through with Carter, but it was Bill Clinton that established that philosophy as the central theme of the party. It was a tragic mistake, even though it that paid short term gains for Bill. Once the Dems climbed in bed with Wall Street, and let's be honest here: they did in spades, The two parties became Tweedledum and Tweedledee on economics. That shifted the focus to social issues ... all of them divisive. When the division was economic, it was at least theoretically possible to unite along class lines. Now, that's nearly impossible. Poorer whites don't trust the Dems, because they are on the side of (insert every group except theirs). Minorities don't trust Dems who don't tow their line, making the appeal to poorer white impossible.
It's Catch 22.
Although I disagreed with the Clinton-era New Democrat cave-in to the neo-liberals, and said so vociferously, and joined the Green Party then, that didn't mean the two parties became tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. Clinton still campaigned loudly against trickle-down economics, and at the 2004 convention (I believe) he said "our way works better." So there is a difference. The Democrats and Republicans are still divided along economic philosophy, and the more so as the Clinton era has passed. It may be up to the poorer whites to drop their resentment against other groups, and realize which party has their back. Trump was able to fool some of them. But you can't fool the people all the time.
The Democratic candidate who can get both wings on board, is a Democrat with a high horoscope score (translate: someone who can appeal to Americans, can communicate and connect with people and articulate well). As far as the presidency is concerned, the quality of the candidate, AS a candidate, IS EVERYTHING. Obama score 19-2. Hillary score 9-11. Kerry score 8-12. Gore score 10-9. Bill Clinton score 21-3. Dukakis score 2-10.
Trump score, 9-4. McCain score, 15-13. Romney score, 4-10. Bob Dole score, 12-19. George W Bush score, 17-2. George HW Bush score, 14-6. The numbers speak.
Best bests:
Mitch Landrieu, 16-2
Terry McAuliffe, 11-2 or higher
ONLY if Dems nominate one of these two, do the Democrats have a good chance in 2020 if Trump is the candidate.
Runners up:
Sherrod Brown, 19-8 (has rust belt advantage)
Michael Moore, 16-6
Chris Murphy, 9-3
Oprah Winfrey, 10-3
Antonio Villaraigosa, 15-5 (CA Governor candidate, former LA Mayor)
Gavin Newsom, 7-1 (CA Governor candidate, best chance in 2028)
Maybe, but doubtful:
Debbie Stabenow, 8-3
Chuck Schumer, 15-8
Roy Cooper, 10-4
Jason Carter, 10-4 (future prospect)
Tom Vilsack, 15-6
Joe Biden, 13-8
Bernie Sanders, 14-7
Tulsi Gabbard, 11-6
Andrew Cuomo, 11-6
Janet Napolitano, 11-5
Tammy Baldwin, 13-6 (best after 2020)
Richard Blumenthal, 11-6
Doug Jones, 10-5
Tom Steyer, 12-6
Levi Sanders, 10-1 (future prospect)
Lots of buzz, but these candidates have NO chance:
Kamila Harris, 4-14
Eric Garcetti, 7-7
Elizabeth Warren, 8-7
Kirsten Gillibrand, 7-12
Cory Booker, 6-7
Joe Kennedy III, 7-6
Michelle Obama, 6-6
Joe & Julian Castro, 8-13
Tim Kaine, 11-11
Amy Klobuchar, 7-7
Eric Holder, 8-6 (maybe, if Pence runs in 2020)
Want to go show biz? Besides Michael Moore and Oprah, there are a couple of prospects:
Seth Meyers, 20-3
Stephen Colbert, 20-11 (best from 2024 on)
Republicans? Get a load of this group! Besides Trump himself, the only potential candidates I know so far with good scores are those already tarred with the Trump trash.
Ivanka Trump, 16-2
Jared Kushner, 10-4
Steve Bannon, 10-5
Mike Pence, 8-7
Any suggestions, questions? Let me know!
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
I'm curious, when you place people on ignore or ignore relevant comments/position and obvious signs/ truths/ knowledge and so forth, and continue pumping blue rhetoric and lies and so forth is it because you're egotistical/arrogant and can't handle/accept criticism or accept that you're wrong or is it your job/was your job for many many years that it has become a habit to stick to the blue script/blue narrative and continue pumping blue rhetoric/beliefs regardless of known facts and known situations and so forth that discredit and destroy ones credibility. I should you give you my information and see how well I'd match up vs Trump and Democratic contenders. I won't, I'll just assume that I would match up fairly well and freak you out with my numbers.
I've never been one to divulge personal information to a complete stranger or a group of strangers looking to gain information from me that could/can be used for their personal use or gain or recruiting purposes. Plus, I've never been one to seek the limelight either. I've always been one who prefers to remain ambiguous and enjoy the comforts and joys associated with the fruits of my own labor and the enjoyment of living a free and relatively easy life.