U.S. Democratic Primary

[iNow]

On 3/4/2019 at 11:26 AM, iNow said:

[Eric Holder] announced that he will not run.

As (thankfully) did Mike Bloomberg and Hillary Clinton. 

[iNow]

Sherrod Brown (Ohio Senator) was expected to run and represent a less progressive / more moderate Democrat stance, but just announced he will not. 

He was expected to do well with working class blue collar type workers. 

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Sherrod Brown (Ohio Senator) was expected to run and represent a less progressive / more moderate Democrat stance, but just announced he will not. 

He was expected to do well with working class blue collar type workers. 

Brown, Bloomberg, Holder and Clinton. Seems we may pretty much have all the legitimate candidates we are going to get. Only Biden is left. 

[MonDie]

On 2/27/2019 at 7:18 PM, iNow said:

On the how many is too many question, hard to say.

You don’t want them all sniping at each other in the primary and doing all the work of their opponent in the election itself.

[...]

Oh... Um..., I already used the campaign funds to create a political search engine.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Elizabeth+Warren+versus+Bernie+Sanders&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS771US795&oq=Elizabeth+Warren+versus+Bernie+Sanders&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.18341j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[iNow]

Jesus. Now Beto’s in, too

He’s talented. He energizes people and is uplifting. 

He’s not my first choice. I need to learn more about him. I need to see where he stands on things I care about. 

He’s also got the single greatest overlap with Bernie’s base and probably poses the biggest threat to him out of anyone who’s this far announced. 

Will he be the next Obama?

Edited March 14, 2019 by iNow

[Ten oz]

I was hoping Beto would run for the Senate. 

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I was hoping Beto would run for the Senate. 

That's where my head was. Thinking along similar lines for Stacey Abrams. Hugely talented capable people, just harder and harder to whittle down the field now and decide which will earn my vote.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Hugely talented capable people, just harder and harder to whittle down the field now and decide which will earn my vote.

Harris will be getting my vote but I am bias being from Oakland and all. 

I still feel Harris, Warren, Booker, and Sanders (sadly) are the only candidates in the hurt for the party nomination. Everyone else is running for a cabinet job. 

[iNow]

My thoughts will surely evolve over the course of the next several months, but my current thinking on Warren is that she may be better suited in a cabinet role given her policy chops. I think she could get more done in a role like that than as president.

[Ten oz]

45 minutes ago, iNow said:

My thoughts will surely evolve over the course of the next several months, but my current thinking on Warren is that she may be better suited in a cabinet role given her policy chops. I think she could get more done in a role like that than as president.

Warren should have ran in 2016. I think it would have help sharpen her message and delivery. Despite having national coverage for several years now she still seems like she is searching for her footing. 

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Warren should have ran in 2016. I think it would have help sharpen her message and delivery. Despite having national coverage for several years now she still seems like she is searching for her footing. 

Maybe it would have, but that's moot. I saw her in an interview recently, she said that elected office was not on her radar when she was younger. Her background is academic, and some public service, so when she said she didn't want to run back then, that she didn't want to be president, I think that's the truth.

Why run to sharpen your image and delivery if you (at that time) have no intention of seeking that office?

You could just as easily argue that she should have tried to run for public office at a younger age, too, since she seems to be pretty good at being a senator. But that is also moot.

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why run to sharpen your image and delivery if you (at that time) have no intention of seeking that office?

You could just as easily argue that she should have tried to run for public office at a younger age, too, since she seems to be pretty good at being a senator. But that is also moot.

Assuming she believes electing one of her Democratic peers over Trump is important identifying her own weaknesses and best utilizing her skills should be the priority. If she would be better suited as a surrogate for another candidate than that is what she should be doing rather than running for POTUS. I rather see any Democrat (of those currently on my radar) in office over Trump. For me isn't moot because I don't think she has properly prepared herself. Trump and the electoral college doesn't care what Warren's previous aspirations were. That isn't to say having run in 2016 was a requirement but it doesn't seem Warren is as competent a candidate out the gate as she should have been. 

At some point in the future all the various candidates running will need to decide whether to priorities their own campaigns or prop up the candidate best positioned to win. It is something Bernie Sanders royally screwed up in 2016 in my opinion. If Warren can't get her messaging together and steam going she would best help by supporting those who can. I want to see Democrats win in 2020 for many different reason. 

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

would have help sharpen her message and delivery. Despite having national coverage for several years now she still seems like she is searching for her footing.  <...> I don't think she has properly prepared herself <...> If Warren can't get her messaging together...

I'm getting stuck on this point you keep making. I've read what she's been saying. I've watched her live these last several weeks. I've seen how she's navigating among her colleagues in the Senate. I've listened to her on several podcasts. I'm confused why you feel so strongly that doesn't have a message. To me, she's been quite clear and crisp and on message, but I understand you feel differently.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

That isn't to say having run in 2016 was a requirement but it doesn't seem Warren is as competent a candidate out the gate as she should have been. 

Are there any objective criticisms about her competency as a candidate? You're free to like or dislike a candidate based on any criteria you wish, but here, in this forum, if this is about applying a different metric to some candidates but not others, I'm not interested.

Similar to what iNow said, I have not been confused about her messaging. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Are there any objective criticisms about her competency as a candidate? You're free to like or dislike a candidate based on any criteria you wish, but here, in this forum, if this is about applying a different metric to some candidates but not others, I'm not interested.

Similar to what iNow said, I have not been confused about her messaging. 

I agree with the bulk of everything I hear her say. However in my opinion part of managing a message includes influencing coverage to best maximize the amount of media received. I think she has done a poor job at that.  I thought the DNA test stuff was an unforced error, if not an outright embarrassment, which only distracts from more meaningful discussions. She also has failed to differentiate herself from Trump on key foreign issues like Syria basically saying Trump was right to pull troops out. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

she has done a poor job at that.  I thought the DNA test stuff was an unforced error, if not an outright embarrassment, which only distracts from more meaningful discussions

She agrees and has repeatedly acknowledged this. She’s been very transparent each time it’s raised in every interview. 

[Ten oz]

Just now, iNow said:

She agrees and has repeatedly acknowledged this. She’s been very transparent each time it’s raised in every interview. 

I never implied she hasn't. However it is a distraction all the same. She shouldn't be wasting time on it in interviews. 

I would happily vote for Warren if she were the nominee. However as previously mentioned I don't feel she has managed her message well. She doesn't appear to be a polished campaigner. Perhaps in time that will change. 

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

She shouldn't be wasting time on it in interviews

I’m fairly certain she agrees with that, too

[Ten oz]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m fairly certain she agrees with that, too

Sure, it is a self inflicted wound though. She invited the discussion. 

She also probably has various caveats for pulling out of Syria too based on the intelligence and recommendation of military officials but she hasn't done a very good job outlining them. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Ten oz

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I agree with the bulk of everything I hear her say. However in my opinion part of managing a message includes influencing coverage to best maximize the amount of media received. I think she has done a poor job at that.

I've seen her interviewed a number of places. If you agree with what she says, you must have heard the message somewhere.

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

  I thought the DNA test stuff was an unforced error, if not an outright embarrassment, which only distracts from more meaningful discussions.

Has this actually come up since she's declared she's running?

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

She also has failed to differentiate herself from Trump on key foreign issues like Syria basically saying Trump was right to pull troops out. 

Is it that she hasn't disagreed with Trump, or that your position is that the US should stay in Syria? My own opinion is that I wouldn't respect a candidate that's running on a "disagree with anything Trump did" (which paradoxically, would be mimicking Trump/GOP position of "do the opposite of what the dems want, even if you previously agreed with the policy")  

[MigL]

Some of these candidates had better watch out.
That despot you guys elected as POTUS has actually threatened violence against his opposition, by his supporters in the armed Forces, Law Enforcement, and  Bikers for Trump ( ?), in a Breitbart interview.
Not very Presidential ( actually kind of scary ).

Everytime I think he can't sink any lower, he proves me wrong.

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Has this actually come up since she's declared she's running?

Yes it has. Just last month same week as her formal announcement the Washington Post ran an article about her registering for the TX as a native back in 86'. She made various responses to that. It is a distraction of her own creation. 

4 hours ago, swansont said:

it that she hasn't disagreed with Trump, or that your position is that the US should stay in Syria? My own opinion is that I wouldn't respect a candidate that's running on a "disagree with anything Trump did" (which paradoxically, would be mimicking Trump/GOP position of "do the opposite of what the dems want, even if you previously agreed with the policy")  

In my opinion it isn't a simple matter of staying or going. Whether or not Assad remains, Russia's influence, use of WMDs, relations with Turkey, and the refugee crisis are all issues which matter and must be addressed. The scenarios are vast. Warren hasn't spoken to that. Like Trump she has provided a simplistic position on an immensely complicated issue. Children are dying, families are seeking refuge, Assad is using chemical weapons, and etc. Whether U.S. troops stay or go doesn't in itself resolve those things. 

4 hours ago, swansont said:

I've seen her interviewed a number of places. If you agree with what she says, you must have heard the message somewhere.

The amount of time any candidate gets is finite. Warren has wasted a lot of the time afforded her on things I think are silly or wrong. I am aware of her positions because I have followed her career. Had I not known much about her prior to now nothing she has done recently would have been very informative. Her foriegn policy positions are vague (an issue I care about a great deal) and she has invited the silly heritage garbage through her own actions.

I do not dislike Warren. I just feel she isn't campaigning well. She has terrific policy ideas regarding tax reform, banking regulations, and social safety nets. However she is to easily brought off message by minutiae and doesn't seem to have clear positions on important matters beyond those she is most vocal about. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

However she is to easily brought off message by minutiae and doesn't seem to have clear positions on important matters beyond those she is most vocal about. 

Unlike other candidates...

[Ten oz]

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

Unlike other candidates...

As it relates to Syria Cory Booker and Kamala Harris have spoken more clearly regarding the complexity of the situation in my opinion. While I do not necessarily agree with Amy Klobuchar's more hawkish foreign policy positions I do respect that she appears to have well developed thoughts on the matter. Something I don't feel Warren has shown. Warren tends to lean on slogans about ending endless wars choosing to critique what's wrong with what's been done rather that outline what must be done. 

This is a subjective conversation. I cannot prove definitively proof that Warren isn't effectively communicating her message. You asked for some examples and I provided them. It is just the way it seems to me. Warren doesn't appear to have enough flushed positions for a Presidential campaign and has hamstrung herself with the Native heritage stuff by taking the bait from the right. While many Republicans succeed running on nationalist platforms exclusively focused on things like tax reform I expect far more from Democratic candidates. 

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

As it relates to Syria Cory Booker and Kamala Harris have spoken more clearly regarding the complexity of the situation in my opinion. While I do not necessarily agree with Amy Klobuchar's more hawkish foreign policy positions I do respect that she appears to have well developed thoughts on the matter. Something I don't feel Warren has shown. Warren tends to lean on slogans about ending endless wars choosing to critique what's wrong with what's been done rather that outline what must be done. 

My statement made no mention of Syria, did not quote a statement that included Syria. It was not related to Syria.