Ten oz

"Marist poll conducted for NPR and PBS NewsHour out Friday showed Winfrey topping Trump, 50 percent to 39 percent, while 11 percent of voters were undecided." "The PCCC poll also tested Trump against Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The poll found that Warren, widely considered a leading contender for the Democratic nomination in 2020, would lead Trump by 6 points, 49 percent to 43 percent, while 8 percent said they were unsure." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/01/12/oprah-2020-polls-336488#ampshare=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/12/oprah-2020-polls-336488

Yes, Republicans sell deregulation as limiting government overreach but reality the goal is to benefit large corporations that exploit resources. When it comes to what's going on in our bedrooms, law enforcements ability to shoot you dead in the street, the govt's ability to execute you, autonomous vehicles ability to kill, data collection, and on and on and on Republican have no problem with overreach. Things like the Patriot Act were written and signed into law by Republicans. It is currently Republicans attempting to crack down on states which have legalized marijuana. When Republicans talk about less govt it only applies a la carte to those things which they choose. You are ignoring the better in pursuit if the perfect. However you feel about Obama he was a better President Bush. Ensuring we select those whom are better is still important even if no one is perfect. The way the U.S. is set up Democracy is divided. Wyoming has 1/56th the population of Texas yet has equal representation in the Senate. A candidate can win 3 million more votes yet still lose. The constitution established these things. Candidates for office do not need to speak for everyone. They just need to speak for the correct pockets of people. Money in politics didn't create that. Outlaw all lobbyists and campaign contributions tomorrow and Trump would still be able to gin up support demonizing immigrants. Trump won 70% of the popular vote in Wyoming and West VA. Those weren't states where massive amounts of money were used to influence voters. They are mining states and Trump's promise to increase mining jobs resonated. Clinton's campaign raised 1.2 billion dollars and Trump's campaign only raise 650 million dollars yet Trump won. In 2012 Romney raised a billion dollars and lost. While money in politics is bad it isn't absolute. The below links breaks down where Clinton and Trump yet raise and spent money: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama was one of the most widely covered and studied developments of the 2008 presidential campaign, as she has been described as the most influential woman in the world[1][2][3]. Winfrey first endorsed Obama in September 2006 before he had even declared himself a candidate. In May 2007 Winfrey made her first endorsement of candidate Obama, and in December 2007, she made her first campaign appearances for him. Two economists estimate that Winfrey’s endorsement was worth over a million votes in the Democratic primary race[4] and that without it, Obama would have lost the nomination.[5] Then-Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich claimed that the endorsement was so significant in electing Obama president that he considered offering Obama's former seat in the Senate to Winfrey. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey's_endorsement_of_Barack_Obama I am simply criticizing the Dwayne Johnson comparison. Winfrey is on a very different level than the Rock.

I didn't say it was happening. I said comparing Winfrey to Johnson was akin to comparing George Lucas to a successful YouTube-er. I am not sure what you mean by no Democrat support? Winfrey has helped campaign and raise money for Democrats. She played a large role in 2008 for Obama.

Winfrey is the wealthiest, non-heiress, female in the world. She own television, film, publishing, and online companies well has ventures into radio. Oprah is a wildly successful entrepreneur head and toes above any comparison. Dwayne Rock is just an entertainer. Dwayne Johnson isn't even the most successful entertainer among his peers. Comparing Winfrey to Johnson is like comparing George Lucas to someone with a very successful YouTube channel. It seriously under appreciate the scale and multifaceted nature of her successes and enterprizes.

We (you and I) should support those candidates which interested in representing us. I don't just mean with best intentions but also with effective policies. That said we also should ignore the better in pursuit of the perfect as I feel many Sanders supporters did in 2016. Ultimately it remains to be seen what type of Politician Oprah might be. Part of me is concerned about diminishing the office but another part of me is excited by the idea of a candidate who can break the endless 24/7 cycle of Trump coverage which is continuing to divide the nation and increase partisan hostility. I don't believe a subtle nuance message centered around well analysed economic numbers, as one would expect from an experienced politician, can thrive is the current political environment. Something else we all haven't discussed yet is that if Winfrey we're to run and get the Democratic nomination it may not end up being Oprah vs Trump but rather Oprah vs Pence. The Mueller investigation may still finish Trump. I think in that event Winfrey or nearly anyone would score one of the biggest wins in presidential history.

Donald Rumsfeld had been White House Chief of staff, Ambassador to NATO, and was a Congressman. Donald Rumsfeld was Sec of State under President Ford. When Bush tapped Rumsfeld to be his Sec of State few on earth were more qualified on paper. Donald Rumsfeld still did a terrible job with Iraq and Afghanistan. Dick Cheney was a formerly a White House Chief of Staff, Congressman for a decade, and Sec of State. Dick Cheney had a tremendous political resume. Dick Cheney was a terrible Vice President. No amount of prior political experience automatically makes someone a good fit for public office. Nixon was a Congressman, Senator, and Vice President before become President and still disgraced the himself POTUS. Intentions matter. Actually giving a damn about people matters. On paper Paul Ryan would make an excellent Presidential Candidate; one I would probably never vote for because he is an ideolog whom participates in grievance politics that divide the nation. I am sure we ALL agree whomever the President is should be qualified to do the job. Where split is what exactly qualifies someone. Political experience alone doesn't qualify someone, at least not to earn my vote. I can name a lot of long tenured Politicians I think are absolutely terrible.

I never implied otherwise. I only argued Bush had experience within normal standards. We all can agree Trump didn't. Bush was a terrible President.

I am not arguing you are wrong with regards to "public service". Rather I am saying that "public service" isn't anymore relevant experience than other things are. Lack of high level military experience was your disqualifier for Bush's military service when I mentioned it which sort of conflates relevant experience with public service. His service was public service but not the type you felt was relevant in preparing one to be POTUS; so you are attaching relevance to public service. All I am arguing is that relevant experience and public service are not interchangeable or equal. Bush had as much relevant experience in general as Obama or Clinton. I am not arguing he had more or less public service.

I am not saying you are wrong. Rather that the qualifiers are questionable. Obama was only in the Senate for 4yrs and prior to that worked in politics at the local level. It could be argued that his experience in the IL legislature was no more relevant to the work Bush had done working for his old man and behind the scenes in TX politics. Both Bush and Obama have a failed house bud under their belts. Bill Clinton was a Governor for more individual years and a Attorney General for 2 yrs but had no additional experience. I think Clinton, Bush, Obama all had relatively similar experience levels some would and could argue for one more than the others.

Bush was the Governor of the countries 2nd largest state for 5yrs. That job involved making policy or passing laws, or dealing with constitutional issues. Bush not totally inexperienced and he filled his cabinet with very experienced people. He had one of the more experienced cabinets of my life time. I don't think it is fair to lump him in with Trump as a no political experience Business person who became POTUS. I agree Bush was a bad President. I don't think any amount of experience would have change that. Bush simply wasn't smart enough to do it.

That seems like a leap. Black communities in New Orleans are very different than one in San Francisco: size, income, education, access to healthcare, and etc. When I have time It will see it I can find region stats. I believe I had seen some in the past which indicated the midwest having significantly higher rates but I could be mistaken.

Bush' actually had a lot of political experience and some service. Asterisk next to it or not he did service in the military, unsuccessfully ran for a house seat, helped manage his fathers campaign, and was a Governor. Bush was terrible for a few reasons. Firstly he had competing voices within his party which translated to competing voice in his cabinet and wasn't smart enough to navigate it, events like 9/11 made everything worse, and the bottom falling out on decades of Conservative economic dogma. Bush didn't have the brain power to deal with what was going on but I actually think most he was well intention-ed. Bush did want to work where he could across the isle but wasn't smart enough to figure out how and his base was too aggressively opposed. I think 00'-08' would have been tough for any one. Had Gore won on 00' he would have been hung out to dry after 9/11. Don't misunderstand though ; Bush was stupid and terrible. My point is merely that Bush had the standard level of experience we see in most politicians. #4 - not threaten nuclear war via twitter

It is well known Kennedy had health issues and sexual escapades which were hidden from the public. In 1992 (3yrs after leaving office) Ronald Reagan was interviewed by the special counsel investigating Iran Contra and during that interview Reagan could even remember who his Sec of State had been because his mental state was no deteriorated. From Washington's dentures to FDR hiding his disabilities history is full of Presidents with various compromised situations. Winfrey's history as a business person isn't automatically disqualifying. It doesn't automatically mean she would be unable. When you say "must have experienced politicians" what does that mean; Roy Moore was experienced. Roy Moore had been elected to the bench in AL 3 separate times. Sarah Palin was formerly a Mayor of a city and Governor of a state do you feel she is qualified? Being POTUS isn't akin to being a Plumber, Olympic athlete, or any of the other jobs you listed. There are specific testable skills required for one to become those things. I would trust a narcissistic, chauvinist, who believed in UFOs and Bigfoot to perform plumbing at my home provided they were licensed because a plumbers dispossession and world view is irrelevant.

Humility and cooperation are essential to being an effective President in the U.S.. There are people who have worked at the State Department for decades, Justice Department for decades, Senate, education, health, commerce, and etc, etc. A President must lean on people's expertise and not just demand everything they think be treated as gospel. Additionally the President is merely the head of a 3 branch system nationally and their are many other local governments beyond that. People hyper focus on who the President is yet many of the things which most directly impact individuals throughout their daily life are things decided by state legislators, county boards, and etc. The President of the U.S. was never meant to be comprable to a king or dictator. Congress is required by the Constitution to do things like pass budgets and declare wars, not POTUS. If Winfrey ran and is the type to recruit intelligent people to help manage the administration I think it would be fine. My issue with Trump isn't that he personally doesn't have all the answers but rather he doesn't seem to care about answers and has surrounded himself by Generals who had previously forced to retire over various unsuitability issues, family members without govt experience, and bigots. Had Trump tapped Kasich for VP, Romney for Sec of State, McCain for Sec of Defense, etc, etc, and actually listened to them and let them do their jobs I would sleep much better at night. POTUS is a package deal in my opinion. Under Obama I was comfortable with people like Susan Rice, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Holder, etc helping to make tough decisions. If as President Winfrey tapped people like Warren, Sanders, Booker, Kaine, Gillibrand, and etc to help her lead and she was willing to listen to them I think she'd be just fine.

The 40k number jumps out at me as interesting. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area but have lived in Boise ID, San Diego, Newport News VA (just a year), and currently call Washington DC home. 40K would make one living in Boise ID or Newport News VA upper middle class yet someone living in CA or DC poor. It is a tough nut to crack and we almost/probably need to look at each case relative to the average income and cost of living within the region where the suicide takes place. Have you seen any studies which indicate areas of the country with higher or lower rates?

Yet another issue campaign finance alone doesn't address. It would take a whole series of changes to campaign laws, broadcasting laws, cyber security enforcement, and etc to get us moving in the right direction. None of those changes can happen till people who actually would like to make such changes get elected and they will have to campaign and compete with the rules as they are today.

The game have changed. Mega donor money to buy TV commercials or Radio ads doesn't cut anymore. Being viral is a requirement. Campaign finance reform can't fix that.

How much did Trump spend to get 24/7 coverage on CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and etc? Even today the coverage is endless. The Daily Show did a hilarious (in my opinion) bit about how inescapable Trump's tweets are which ring very true:

I think the Ship has set sail and is well beyond the horizon. One of the stunning things about 2016 for me was that way media willingly gave Trump billions in free air time. PACs, mega donors, and etc normally frame the discussion around money in politics but it was media (social and news) which gave Trump billions in 2016. Our media is for profit and in 2016 they aired whatever got the most eye balls, period, with zero consideration for the impact on the election. Clinton actually raised more money than Trump but Trump didn't need money to buy things like air time because media gave it to him for free in trade for ratings. I would vote for a Warren/Harris ticket in a heartbeat. That said Warren cannot compete with Trump's ability to get headlines. Warren would be on her heals playing defense throughout the campaign. Most people do not follow politics. They are huge portions of the population which simply do not have the interest or attention span to follow Warren's thought out and detailed approach to governance. I actually think words like governance and democracy make a lot of people eyes role up in their heads. People don't want good governance they want leadership. They don't want democracy they want to win. In this environment I don't think Warren is the best candidate if being the best includes the ability to win. In my opinion Biden is the only Democrat with a large enough profile and aggressive enough personalty demand anything is the small ballpark of equal time from the media.

Clinton spent 8yrs in the white House spearheading initiatives, then 8yrs in the Senate, and 4yrs as Sec of State. That is 20yrs of optimal experience which uniquely qualified her for POTUS. Rather than that being celebrated she was demagogue as to status qou and to much of a Washington insider to be trusted. So there seems to be some double standards within double standards a foot. Having all the qualifications in the world don't matter if you can't get the job.

Brain surgery is a highly technical job which doesn't require having the ability to sell ideas, rally people around philosophies, campaign for party members, and etc, etc. A huge part of being POTUS is networking and campaigning. We can all agree it shouldn't be as big a part as it is but the reality is what it is. To become POTUS and be successful one must be able to appeal the large segments of society and promote a narrative people like. That skill is one celebrities are more uniquely experienced in than former lawyers or constitutional professors. So while someone like Winfrey doesn't have all the various experience and expertise one might wish a candidate for POTUS would have I think it is an overstatement to say she has none all together.

Which is more than many people can say about people like Warren, Harris, Kaine, and etc which was the point referenced earlier. Warren, Harris, and Winfrey in that order.

I only persist because you inaccurately chose to pretend I was putting words in your mouth. If you are going to ignore basic questions that challenge your assertions I see no reason for you to make the assertions in the first place. Participate in the discussion or stop posting in the thread.

This is some Mandela Effect level stuff, lol. No way you weren't aware who Oprah Winfrey was. If you have every walked down a magazine isle at a store you have see her, if you have ever sat of your couch and channel surfed you have seen her, and etc. At most it is possible you knew her face and fame but not her too much else. Even then, just knowing her face and fame, is way beyond what the average person knows about Warren or Harris (no, neither Warren or Harris sing). IDK to an question asking for your opinion isn't rather lazy. You could take a second and think about it. Less you feel the question is too complicated in which case you could explain that and provide me the chance to rephrase it.