2024 Presidential Election: Who should replace Joe Biden?

[swansont]

35 minutes ago, TheVat said:

As name drops go, that's about as good as it gets.  Astronauts have that special shine. 

I’ve met Nobel winners, authors and admirals, but the coolest was meeting astronauts (the return crew of STS-124)

[MigL]

Oh, I don't know.
I've briefly met  Marc Garneau, selected as an astronaut in 1983, and the first Canadian in space.
He then served as an MP and cabinet minister in the Trudeau Government.

I met him while he was a cabinet MP, and I don't know if his stint in Government had tarnished my opinion of him, but I wasn't impressed.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

As name drops go, that's about as good as it gets.  Astronauts have that special shine.  

 

Kelly himself can go one better. He can say he’s met our Swansont!

Edited July 23 by J.C.MacSwell

[geordief]

On 7/21/2024 at 9:31 PM, exchemist said:

I’d like to see Buttigieg. That guy could wipe the floor with Trump and would be a real breath of fresh air. CV is fantastic and great communicator. 

He is the joint leader in a poll to be vice pick at 21%. 

Not sure if he is realistically in the frame.

He was interviewed  by Kaitlan Collins tonight   and seemed   in good form .

 

Said he liked how Harris was  framing the discussion around "freedom"

[Alex_Krycek]

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

Kelly, Beshear, Shapiro.  My guess is it's dwn to those three.  All three give her daylight between her and Biden and know how to talk to moderates without inflaming Progressives.  (though Shapiro has been so pro-Israel that he could put off the progs in the No More Bombs for You, Bibi cohort)

What's really encouraging is Biden waited until the RNC was over to step down, so the GOP is stuck with Vance now.   Any of my trio will eat Vance for breakfast.

As name drops go, that's about as good as it gets.  Astronauts have that special shine.  

 

Yeah, Mark Kelly should be President, let's be honest.  

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Yeah, Mark Kelly should be President, let's be honest.  

If I'm being honest, no old white guy should be president for a while. The perspective is limited and hasn't been representative of much of the USA for quite some time. 

It's also pretty insulting to insinuate that Harris isn't fit, and that (honestly) this MAN would be better, and that's part of the reason why I think this "man's job" attitude needs to die. I think most women have a better grasp of the big picture than most men do, and I'd love to see a woman in charge finally help this country be more than a swindle for the wealthy.

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If I'm being honest, no old white guy should be president for a while. The perspective is limited and hasn't been representative of much of the USA for quite some time. 

While I agree a woman's perspective offers a lot to running this country, I have to say that all perspectives are limited in some way, so there are no guarantees of anyone pulling in the best big picture.  Black voters, as a bloc, were very supportive of Biden as someone who understood the big picture, so maybe lack of melanin doesn't have to be an impediment to perspective.  

Justice Jackson, for example, was an excellent choice for SCOTUS not because she was Black or a woman, but because she had a different educational track and upbringing and life experience than anyone else on the Court.  That, plus a lively and sharp intellect, made her a good pick.  

I don't see Kelly as POTUS because he is still light on experience.  Even the fairly green Obama had seven more years political experience than Kelly.  Maybe in four years (er, eight years) we can ask if looking at Earth from orbit helps with a big picture.  If he were then the most qualified person for the job, then I don't think his ethnicity or gender should be a factor at all.  Just as Kamala would make a great Reproductive Rights/Women's Rights president, so would Mark Kelly make a great Gun Control President.  

Edited July 24 by TheVat
8 years

[CharonY]

Just now, TheVat said:

While I agree a woman's perspective offers a lot to running this country, I have to say that all perspectives are limited in some way, so there are no guarantees of anyone pulling in the best big picture. 

That's fair. But I suppose that Phi alludes to the fact that old white guys have dominated this (and other) positions of power for quite a long time. I.e. any divergence from that would more likely add perspective as a whole.

[TheVat]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That's fair. But I suppose that Phi alludes to the fact that old white guys have dominated this (and other) positions of power for quite a long time. I.e. any divergence from that would more likely add perspective as a whole.

That, too, is fair.  I just bristled a little at the male stereotype, "most men have a better grasp of the big picture than most men do."  Calling us men relatively oafish is not really better than calling women ditzy or moody.  It's a trendy thing to do, I hear it a lot, but it is not contributing to the mental health of young people to hear these kinds of stereotypes.  If we simply go by the criterion of fresh perspective, then inevitably more women and POC will pour into our political chambers.  

 

Why does the software now take away the text window I'm writing in when I open another folder?  This has been going on for a few months and it's annoying AF.  I open a new window and recover my text, but why should that be necessary when it wasn't before?  

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, TheVat said:

If he were then the most qualified person for the job, then I don't think his ethnicity or gender should be a factor at all.

I'm not willing to assume he is, even for the purpose of this statement. I think it's much more likely that there are at least ten women right now who are more qualified, who haven't been considered because of gender and ethnicity. And while women have served in modern presidential administrations, they haven't been in charge, haven't been POTUS, and I would hope that makes a big difference.

26 minutes ago, TheVat said:

That, too, is fair.  I just bristled a little at the male stereotype, "most men have a better grasp of the big picture than most men do."  Calling us men relatively oafish is not really better than calling women ditzy or moody.

I did no such thing. I also think men in general have a better focus on a single task than women in general. I have no evidence that this is a holdover from hunter/gatherer days, but it's always seemed this way to me. Hunters hunt meat, gatherers gather everything else. Focus vs big picture, not oaf vs mastermind.

I think we've excluded women from too much in the past, and having both perspectives united again can only be a boon for all of us. I also love the diversity I see people embracing lately! David Attenborough's special on his testimony regarding climate change made a big impression on me, where he said his whole life had shown him that nature's great strength lay in its diversity, and that we should use it as a blueprint for future endeavors. I think rich old white American men have set themselves up at the expense of the rest of the world, and we should stop giving them the power to make it worse.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

That, too, is fair.  I just bristled a little at the male stereotype, "most men have a better grasp of the big picture than most men do."  Calling us men relatively oafish is not really better than calling women ditzy or moody.  It's a trendy thing to do, I hear it a lot, but it is not contributing to the mental health of young people to hear these kinds of stereotypes.  If we simply go by the criterion of fresh perspective, then inevitably more women and POC will pour into our political chambers.  

But white men often don’t have to work as hard to succeed — not to say that they don’t, but they (we) don’t have barriers to overcome that women and/or ethnic minorities do, and have advantages from the structures already in place.

Hence the adage that women have to do things twice as well to be considered half as good.

[Peterkin]

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I also think men in general have a better focus on a single task than women in general.

That's true in a certain way. Just from marriages I've observed - solid ones, where the couple work well together: The man concentrates single-mindedly on the main thing, building the wall, digging the hole, demolishing the shed, getting to the reception on time. Then he loses interest and the woman takes care of the details - plastering the wall, saving the lilac bush, recycling the materials, bringing the gift. That's how team projects are supposed to go. The big picture is made up of thousands of little pictures.

27 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think we've excluded women from too much in the past, and having both perspectives united again can only be a boon for all of us.

That's what the Natives have always known. We need all the elders to deliberate before committing our resources to a war, shoreline preservation or tax reform.

30 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think rich old white American men have set themselves up at the expense of the rest of the world, and we should stop giving them the power to make it worse.

Yay for that! But exclude the rich old brown, olive and ocher men - and women, too. 

[MigL]

If the biggest threat in this coming election is the damage to democracy that a D Trump win could mean, it may be time to consider the 'unity' ticket that has been mentioned previously.
I don't see much chance of this coming to pass, because of resistance from both sides, but bringing on board almost sane Republicans, such as L Chaney, would still keep most all Democrat votes, plus steal away a fair number of Republican votes and guarantee a democracy saving win.

The country cannot keep going the way it's headed; eventually sane heads must prevail, and work together for the benefit of the country, not their individual parties.

"We don't need no civil war." - G 'n R

It is now being reported that J Shapiro and M Kelly are shortlisted as VP running mates to K Harris.

[swansont]

Who is proposing a unity ticket? The same chuckleheads who were rooting for a contested convention?

You might lose voters on the left for any you gain on the right. If you want an energized left, which is what’s happening right now, you can’t throw cold water on them with a “unity” choice.

 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I did no such thing. I also think men in general have a better focus on a single task than women in general. I have no evidence that this is a holdover from hunter/gatherer days, but it's always seemed this way to me. Hunters hunt meat, gatherers gather everything else. Focus vs big picture, not oaf vs mastermind.

Ok, glad we're not oafs with tunnel vision (unless we're JD Vance), but this hunter gatherer dichotomy still seems wobbly and stereotypey to me.  I realize you are making a proper disclaimer of having no evidence, and that this is your speculative take.  Guess I've just known too many women, my spouse included, who are notably single task focused people and make me look a scattered flibbertigibbet by comparison.  Have I mentioned how much I like radishes?

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I did no such thing. I also think men in general have a better focus on a single task than women in general. I have no evidence that this is a holdover from hunter/gatherer days, but it's always seemed this way to me. Hunters hunt meat, gatherers gather everything else. Focus vs big picture, not oaf vs mastermind.

I think that is fairly anecdotal. In my field of work, and especially in the lab, I do see that on average women are better requiring focussed tasks (but of course there is a bit level of self-selection in terms of interest). To my knowledge, there are studies looking at task-switching and I think there is no clear evidence for differences. It might depend on task or there might be cultural factors and so on. 

Quote

Hence the adage that women have to do things twice as well to be considered half as good.

That is very true and I see much in that especially among older colleagues (who likely had to fight very hard for their positions).

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

Who is proposing a unity ticket? The same chuckleheads who were rooting for a contested convention?

You might lose voters on the left for any you gain on the right. If you want an energized left, which is what’s happening right now, you can’t throw cold water on them with a “unity” choice.

 

Indeed. Acquiescing to a diminishing assumed centre (and defining it is pretty difficult to begin with) is likely not feasible. It is the reality that the less and less is found in the centre now and I will note that many of the sane GOP folks are very far away policy-wise. They are not center politically, they just happen to mostly acknowledge that there is an reality. Catering to that is supremely difficult and almost certainly a losing ticket. 

 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Yay for that! But exclude the rich old brown, olive and ocher men - and women, too. 

I think I lean this way, too.  It's less the melanin shortage or dangly bits, more the bubble of wealth that  obscures seeing the big picture and how ordinary folk occupy most of the pixels.  

[Peterkin]

There is no valid comparison of how people perform in public office by sex. (Especially given that some sexes haven't been given the chance to perform.) We have witnessed men and women in various settings - working together and individually, in segregated and mixed groups, and can each form some general impression of by-and-large.

But the individuals elected to public office are not by-and-large; they're not statistics. Each has a public record, so we can find out exactly how they have performed these particular tasks. I think Harris can safely put her record up against any of the other contenders for that office.

[CharonY]

Just now, Peterkin said:

I think Harris can safely put her record up against any of the other contenders for that office.

When she ran for presidency there were mixed perceptions on her record, but also the fact that she is from California. The latter paints her too elitist for the Mid-west crowd, and her former job as prosecutor (and associated track record) might have soured her to the left.

 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

don't see much chance of this coming to pass, because of resistance from both sides, but bringing on board almost sane Republicans, such as L Chaney

I think Lon Chaney would be great for capturing the werewolf vote!

Or, wait, perhaps you meant Liz Cheney.  I don't think progressives who are essential to a Harris win will warm up to Liz Cheney, however much she is a woman of character and courage.  I think Harris needs someone who can talk with conservatives without being themselves a conservative, e.g. Beshear or Kelly or Cooper.

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The latter paints her too elitist for the Mid-west crowd, and her former job as prosecutor (and associated track record) might have soured her to the left.

I wasn't talking about the voters' skewed perception; I was talking about the woman's competence as compared to the competence of any other candidate.

[Alex_Krycek]

20 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If I'm being honest, no old white guy should be president for a while. The perspective is limited and hasn't been representative of much of the USA for quite some time. 

It's also pretty insulting to insinuate that Harris isn't fit, and that (honestly) this MAN would be better, and that's part of the reason why I think this "man's job" attitude needs to die. I think most women have a better grasp of the big picture than most men do, and I'd love to see a woman in charge finally help this country be more than a swindle for the wealthy.

I'm no fan of identity politics, personally.  I think you should look at the candidates qualifications and judge them based on that.  Man, woman, white, black - what are the accomplishments?  That's what matters.
 

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, CharonY said:

When she ran for presidency there were mixed perceptions on her record, but also the fact that she is from California. The latter paints her too elitist for the Mid-west crowd, and her former job as prosecutor (and associated track record) might have soured her to the left.

 

She seems to have galvanised plenty of support, in a short time; she seems to me like a released spring.

Do you think that energy is enough to catch up, given that Trump's primery weapon is pointing at him now?

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I'm no fan of identity politics, personally.  I think you should look at the candidates qualifications and judge them based on that.  Man, woman, white, black - what are the accomplishments?  That's what matters.

Shouldn't matter their gender, pick the best person for the job, right? It's an exceedingly easy sentiment to hold, isn't it? But it implies that there aren't already more qualified women and/or people of color out there, that we're skipping over better white men just to fill a quota or something. 

My stance is that, if you find presidential candidates of equal qualifications, the woman has more potential to change the corrupt system from within. They've been stifled in politics ever since their participation was allowed. Their perspective is badly needed. We know what the old white man will do if he's elected, they've shown this. Multiple studies have shown that women leaders in business create a better work environment: https://www.apa.org/topics/women-girls/female-leaders-make-work-better

Quote

 

When more women are empowered to lead, everyone benefits. Decades of studies show women leaders help increase productivity, enhance collaboration, inspire organizational dedication, and improve fairness.

Despite these benefits, only 10% of Fortune 500 companies are led by women. How can businesses create more opportunities for women in leadership spaces using psychological science?

 

So look for the best qualified candidate, by all means. I bet it's going to be a woman, and I bet a LOT of men will disagree. Because that's what we've historically done.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

My stance is that, if you find presidential candidates of equal qualifications, the woman has more potential to change the corrupt system from within.

They already have, in some places. The second biggest problem is, so far, that most of the competent, strong women in politics have not practiced feminine politics - they were just more manly (tougher) than the men they had to compete against. Before the atmosphere really changes, both the men and women in a field have to grow accustomed to working together, so they can relax, stop playing roles and bring their most authentic self to the job. To achieve that, you need the right proportion - I believe the magic number is 35% - not sure. 

But the biggest problem is that you're not getting candidates of either sex or any ethnicity who are the best qualified people available. You get the people who put themselves forward for reasons other than a desire to serve their community, and arrive at their highest achievable office through means other than merit.