Oprah as a Presidential candidate

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

One could argue that the two presidents who have had extensive business experience (Bush II and Trump) have been two of the worst presidents since WWII started. They also had the least amount of public service under their belts of any recent president.

 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.  

9 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

In the future, I have reduced my critical requirements to three: can he/she win, will he/she work to eliminate PACs and big money in politics, and will he/she work to stop greenhouse emissions.

#4 - not threaten nuclear war via twitter

[EdEarl]

Yes, not overtly threaten with nucs.

Edited January 11, 2018 by EdEarl

[Strange]

2 hours ago, DrP said:

OK  -  is she suitably qualified?

I assume not. (Which is why I used a conditional form.) But she could learn, if she wanted to . 

Do you really think no one can learn new skills and choose a new career? Or is it only people who have become famous that somehow become unable to do that? Or that if they do they are ruled out from using their new skills because they are famous?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

 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.

Neither running unsuccessfully, nor helping on a campaign, counts as public service. It's political experience — you can learn how to run a campaign —but not public service. Not making policy or passing laws, or dealing with constitutional issues. And low-level military service doesn't expose you to the political issues that happens at the flag rank.

Quote

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.  

Most presidents do public service for a much longer part of their lives. 

[Ten oz]

Just now, swansont said:

Neither running unsuccessfully, nor helping on a campaign, counts as public service. It's political experience — you can learn how to run a campaign —but not public service. Not making policy or passing laws, or dealing with constitutional issues. And low-level military service doesn't expose you to the political issues that happens at the flag rank.

 

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.

[Raider5678]

41 minutes ago, Strange said:

Do you really think no one can learn new skills and choose a new career? Or is it only people who have become famous that somehow become unable to do that? Or that if they do they are ruled out from using their new skills because they are famous?

 

I'm certain Oprah could probably learn how to become president.

However, by the time she learned how to navigate politics, how to convince senators and congressmen to support her bills, by the time she learned how to watch out for all the tiny details in the bill, by the time she learned how to sway some of the opposition, her presidential term would be over.

My belief is that pretty much anyone can learn.

However that doesn't make them good at it, nor does it mean that it will happen with just a quick briefing. 

Additionally, it's hard to change your mindset. And running a talk show is definitely a different mindset than being president.

Being a billionaire and owning resorts/golf courses is definitely a different mindset than being president. 

Being a military general is definitely a different mindset than being president.

 

It's my opinion, and I'd imagine a few others in this thread, that the best mindset to have is someone who has already been in office. Someone who's used to the twisted strategies, cunning, etc. However. Just because they have the mindset doesn't mean they're good. I'm just saying for them to be effective, they need the right mindset.

Because you have to remember. The president alone can't do anything he/she wants to. The legislative branch plays a huge role in that.

[DrP]

50 minutes ago, Strange said:

But she could learn, if she wanted to . 

Do you really think no one can learn new skills and choose a new career?

Of course not and I didn't say so either.  So - following your line of argument, what retraining will she go through to prepare her for the office then?  What retraining did the current pres get to prepare him for the arduous task of office? What courses did they send him on?

Hey, maybe she will be a great president.  If she runs she will win I reckon. Whatever party she joins or runs for, whatever her politics, half of your voters won't care - they will vote for her because they like her and trust her.  

 

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by DrP

[iNow]

3 hours ago, DrP said:

Are you sure it's that simple a job to be POTUS?

Others have already more than adequately addressed this, and I acknowledge you've mentioned it may have been a poor analogy, but just to close the loop... I said the job of POTUS was different from brain surgery and the precise skills that requires, not that it was simple. 

 

12 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

With this, I'm starting to realize that the seat of president is becoming a joke.

That's what happens when the US electorate votes in a man that is obviously unfit and unqualified and who received most of his votes by engaging in grievance politics... scapegoating mexicans, whipping up religious resentment for muslims, implicitly supporting klan members, stoking economic resentments, saying the previous president wasn't a US citizen, etc. ad infinitum...

Also... we should be clear: The "office" of the president is not a joke, even though the person currently sitting in that seat very clearly is.

Resentment politics. Ceaseless propaganda and misinformation from Fox and Hannity and Breitbart and RN, etc. Failure to properly fund US education. Allowing all opinions to be treated equally even when some are clearly wrong (see also: climate change denial). These all lead to horrible outcomes.

The only reason the idea of Oprah and the Rock running for president isn't immediately laughed at and rejected... the only reason we're even talking about this with any sense of seriousness... is because we've just seen someone as ridiculous as Trump win the seat (even though he lost the popular vote by about 3 million votes).

"Without an educated populace, democracy cannot sustain itself."

Edited January 11, 2018 by iNow

[Raider5678]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

That's what happens when the US electorate votes in a man that is obviously unfit and unqualified and who received most of his votes by engaging in grievance politics... scapegoating mexicans, whipping up religious resentment for muslims, implicitly supporting klan members, stoking economic resentments, saying the previous president wasn't a US citizen, etc. ad infinitum...

Also... we should be clear: The "office" of the president is not a joke, even though the person currently sitting in that seat very clearly is.

Resentment politics. Ceaseless propaganda and misinformation from Fox and Hannity and Breitbart and RN, etc. Failure to properly fund US education. Allowing all opinions to be treated equally even when some are clearly wrong (see also: climate change denial). These all lead to horrible outcomes.

The only reason the idea of Oprah and the Rock running for president isn't immediately laughed at and rejected... the only reason we're even talking about this with any sense of seriousness... is because we've just seen someone as ridiculous as Trump win the seat (even though he lost the popular vote by about 3 million votes).

"Without an educated populace, democracy cannot sustain itself."

2

Agreed. +1

[swansont]

54 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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.

I didn't say he had no experience. I said he and Trump had "the least amount of public service under their belts of any recent president." (since WWII)

If I'm wrong, give me a name. Someone who had less that 5 years of political office or other high-level public service, in the time frame in question.

[EdEarl]

I believe POTUS is a unique job, with some things that are common from year to year, but many important things are changing rapidly as technology and culture change. One can learn to manage things that do not change or change slowly, but no one can predict those spontaneous things that must be managed creatively. I expect a president to be able to hire staff to manage commonplace things, with presidential oversight, and I expect the President personally work the unusual ones.

There is no school that teaches how to write a hit song or win a Nobel prize; similarly, there is no job to prepare for the unique parts of being President. How did Lincoln prepare to be President? Preparation may keep a mediocre President from failure, but it can never teach one how to do great things.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I didn't say he had no experience. I said he and Trump had "the least amount of public service under their belts of any recent president." (since WWII)

If I'm wrong, give me a name. Someone who had less that 5 years of political office or other high-level public service, in the time frame in question.

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.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

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.

That's still public service, and by "local level" you mean he was a state senator for 8 years.

Quote

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.

One could argue that but as it's not part of my claim it would not be relevant.

Quote

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.  

More years. 

So you have given two examples of people who had more years of public service than Bush.  

Thew claim was that Trump and Bush had "the least amount of public service under their belts of any recent president." It's a simple statement of fact. I don't see the point of challenging this unless it's incorrect. Is it? All you are doing is making a different, new argument, which is irrelevant to what I said.

 

[Ten oz]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's still public service, and by "local level" you mean he was a state senator for 8 years.

One could argue that but as it's not part of my claim it would not be relevant.

More years. 

So you have given two examples of people who had more years of public service than Bush.  

Thew claim was that Trump and Bush had "the least amount of public service under their belts of any recent president." It's a simple statement of fact. I don't see the point of challenging this unless it's incorrect. Is it? All you are doing is making a different, new argument, which is irrelevant to what I said.

 

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. 

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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.

Which is a separate argument.

 

[Ten oz]

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which is a separate argument.

 

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. 

[Phi for All]

While being an entertainer (or anything else, really) doesn't mean you can't learn to be a good politician too, it also doesn't mean that your current skill set will make you a better politician. I, for one, think there's too much corruption between business and politics, so putting a former businessperson in a political office is counterintuitive. 

Winfrey's experience with TV was completely different than Trump's. She ran a daily talk show in front of a studio audience, and learned how to capture interest in many different ways. Trump's "reality" show was heavily scripted and edited, and the skills he learned there haven't translated into a better presence, or made him more skilled at handling the press, or even given him a more sophisticated speaking style, all of which you would expect of entertainment experience. Without an audience motivated by grievance politics (as iNow pointed out), Trump's speaking style leaves most people shaking their heads. When he wings it (as Winfrey had to do daily), he's horribly unclear, repetitive, and misspoken. It seems clear he's appealing to the basest, most primal, torch-and-pitchfork urges among the populace. Remove the emotion from his audience, and they'd be left wondering what this gibbering idiot is on about, and wait, what? He's our leader?!

I could see Oprah having a much better relationship with the press. I could see her delivering some fantastically heartfelt speeches. I've always thought a woman president should run on the basis of long-range strategies designed to take us in better/safer/more prosperous directions, show where all the short-term, quick return tactics have led us. Sort of a big-picture, mother hen approach, a true matriarch type. Hillary Clinton always struck me as a woman trying to fit into a job that men usually hold, whereas I can see Oprah Winfrey making it a job a woman should hold. Does that make sense to anyone but me? 

I still think we need the professional politicians back, but if the public can't get over their starry-eyed idiocy, and it's Winfrey vs Trump in 2020, at this point I'd vote Oprah. I think it would be awesome to have a first woman POTUS be someone who could make people think, "We should have had a woman in there a long time ago. What were we thinking?" 

[Ten oz]

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.

[EdEarl]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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 agree with your sentiments. However, those people weren't trying to please you or me. I suspect they did please someone and were handsomely rewarded. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, EdEarl said:

However, those people weren't trying to please you or me

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.

[Area54]

18 hours ago, Phi for All said:

 Hillary Clinton always struck me as a woman trying to fit into a job that men usually hold, whereas I can see Oprah Winfrey making it a job a woman should hold. Does that make sense to anyone but me? 

It makes total sense to me, however, you probably wouldn't want to advertise that.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

It makes total sense to me, however, you probably wouldn't want to advertise that.

I don't see why not. Men created our political system to fit themselves, and it's horribly difficult for women in US politics to work within the "old boys club" atmosphere without bending to its structure. It can tend to create female patriarchs rather than a true matriarchal leader, and I think it would be refreshing to see how a strong woman would restructure our democracy to keep it vibrant and responsive to the will of the People. 

OTOH, Oprah had a bad experience with an early pregnancy, and never experienced motherhood. I keep picturing our first female POTUS as a fierce mother bear type, nurturing and protective, someone who will prioritize her cubs quite a bit higher than they have been for a long time.

[DanTrentfield]

I almost never venture into politics, and I have nothing against her (Even though I don't like her shows and think she is kind of misinformed), but I can't take her as a serious candidate. In the same way I can't take Dwayne Johnson seriously as a candidate for president. Nothing to do with who they are, but rather what they do: Entertainers traditionally do not enter or speak about politics because they want the widest range of people to enjoy their entertainment, I am a musician and that is how I know this. So sure, they may run, and they have every right to do so, but I wouldn't expect to see either of them in the oval office. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, DanTrentfield said:

but I can't take her as a serious candidate. In the same way I can't take Dwayne Johnson seriously as a candidate for president.

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.

[DanTrentfield]

43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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.

Riiiigth, No Republican or Democrat support, and that's all that gets elected these days. Sorry, I just don't see it happening.