01-24-2019, 01:17 AM
(01-23-2019, 08:03 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:(01-23-2019, 03:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(01-23-2019, 11:34 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: How about that?
In 2008 Obama was the anti-war candidate, and he won.
In 2016 Trump was the anti-war candidate, and he won. Hillary Clinton was seen by many as the warmonger, the neo-con.
If the Democratic candidate in 2020 is seen as more pro-war than Trump, he will lose.
The "neo-con" pro-war factor was not as strong a factor in 2016 as some people think.
And the brutal fact remains, that George W Bush actually started a deadly unnecessary war in 2003, and was re-elected in 2004, casting a stain on the American voter that may never be expunged. But George W. Bush had the skills as a candidate to win, as indicated by his horoscope score, and Kerry did not, as indicated by his.
Trump was the war-criminal candidate. He said the way to defeat terrorists was to take out their families. He said we would win so much that we would get tired of winning. He has bloated the military budget, as promised. He threatened North Korea with fire and fury, and broke off a good treaty with Iran that restrained their nuclear program. Anti-war candidate?
Hillary Clinton was a good diplomat and negotiator, with good common sense. She made some war-like mistakes in her career, but she was right on Syria, contrary to many supposed "anti-war" people like Tulsi Gabbard. Her efforts to strengthen sanctions on Iran and her negotiations prepared the way for the Iran treaty. She was willing to cut the defense budget. Hillary was much better at foreign policy than Trump is. But Trump was a more skilled candidate than Hillary, and that's why he won. Not because he was supposedly anti-war.
The candidate who will lose to Trump if nominated is the candidate with the lower horoscope score than Trump. Kirsten Gillibrand, Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro would all lose to Trump. They are not skilled candidates. Only skilled candidates ever win the US presidency, regardless of approval ratings or any issues.
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
How about one big fish you left out, Bernie Sanders? Could he get the job done, advanced age notwithstanding?
Bernie is a skilled candidate, but whether he's skilled enough to beat the master demagogue is a crap shoot. He probably could get the job done, but I wouldn't bet on it. Biden is in a similar vein; not as progressive, which could be a plus or a minus; but probably just as skilled and electable as Bernie. And just as old. He didn't do well before, though. He gave up too soon, perhaps, and didn't have the recognition then.