GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently October 19 19, 4:07 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1283 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 ... 129  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: June 26 19, 10:39 am 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21618
Location: Chicago
33anda3rd wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
Mayor Pete was never a legit candidate to begin with. He's popular among 538 Twitter followers and pretty much no one else. Frankly, I don't want a 37 year old person who has been a small town mayor for a term and a half to be President. Not qualified. Other than being good at social media I don't know what qualifies him for office.


We have to ask, though: who are the folks polling for him. He's sitting, nationally, in the 4-6% range. FL he's a little higher, MS he's a lot lower, SC, NH, IA he's running more than double his national average. Who are they, the folks telling pollsters they like Pete? Gay Americans voting identity politics? Young people voting on identity politics? Independents who hate Trump and have now identified as Democrats who like that Pete is a plain-spoken, fairly vanilla personality who's entire campaign is being critical of the way things are under Trump? Veterans voting on identity politics?

The autopsies of Clinton 2016, professional and armchair alike, all include acknowledgement that Clinton did not do enough for displaced rust belt workers. Displaced blue collar Americans is a smaller amount of voters than milennials, LGBTQ Americans, and independents who went Trump in 2016 who are not displaced blue collar Americans. I'm not saying displaced workers are irrelevant, I'm saying we acknowledge, correctly IMO, that Clinton lost the election in part on that one small sliver of America, and there's a small sliver out there that likes what Pete has to say. Yes, he's toast. He won't win a single state, not even Indiana if he makes it that long. But he has a floor of support and I'm curious what that base is and how another candidate will speak to it to make sure they come out to vote. I don't think it's illogical, esp based on 2016, to think that if Pete's support is Millennial-fueled, that we are talking about a demographic that has shown they can stay home or throw their vote away (people over 49, only 2% voted Stein, while 9% 29 and under voted for her) and who will need to be engaged.


I haven't looked at any demographic breakdowns re Pete but I'm not surprised that he's sitting on something like 4%. He's very well spoken and very likable. He's a soundbite machine because he's great at making smart, pithy statements on any given topic. National media has given him a lot of play as a result while framing him very flatteringly as a sort of campaign curiosity. Given all the positive exposure and his gifts as a speaker it makes sense to me that he's polling better than half the field.

My personal problem with him is simply that he has such little experience. I think he's a pretty savvy dude who is probably using this moment to grow his political brand for a future run at a bigger office. Senate or Governor, something like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: June 26 19, 11:22 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7688
Location: Chicago, IL
G. Keenan wrote:
Spoiler: show
33anda3rd wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
Mayor Pete was never a legit candidate to begin with. He's popular among 538 Twitter followers and pretty much no one else. Frankly, I don't want a 37 year old person who has been a small town mayor for a term and a half to be President. Not qualified. Other than being good at social media I don't know what qualifies him for office.


We have to ask, though: who are the folks polling for him. He's sitting, nationally, in the 4-6% range. FL he's a little higher, MS he's a lot lower, SC, NH, IA he's running more than double his national average. Who are they, the folks telling pollsters they like Pete? Gay Americans voting identity politics? Young people voting on identity politics? Independents who hate Trump and have now identified as Democrats who like that Pete is a plain-spoken, fairly vanilla personality who's entire campaign is being critical of the way things are under Trump? Veterans voting on identity politics?

The autopsies of Clinton 2016, professional and armchair alike, all include acknowledgement that Clinton did not do enough for displaced rust belt workers. Displaced blue collar Americans is a smaller amount of voters than milennials, LGBTQ Americans, and independents who went Trump in 2016 who are not displaced blue collar Americans. I'm not saying displaced workers are irrelevant, I'm saying we acknowledge, correctly IMO, that Clinton lost the election in part on that one small sliver of America, and there's a small sliver out there that likes what Pete has to say. Yes, he's toast. He won't win a single state, not even Indiana if he makes it that long. But he has a floor of support and I'm curious what that base is and how another candidate will speak to it to make sure they come out to vote. I don't think it's illogical, esp based on 2016, to think that if Pete's support is Millennial-fueled, that we are talking about a demographic that has shown they can stay home or throw their vote away (people over 49, only 2% voted Stein, while 9% 29 and under voted for her) and who will need to be engaged.


I haven't looked at any demographic breakdowns re Pete but I'm not surprised that he's sitting on something like 4%. He's very well spoken and very likable. He's a soundbite machine because he's great at making smart, pithy statements on any given topic. National media has given him a lot of play as a result while framing him very flatteringly as a sort of campaign curiosity. Given all the positive exposure and his gifts as a speaker it makes sense to me that he's polling better than half the field.

My personal problem with him is simply that he has such little experience. I think he's a pretty savvy dude who is probably using this moment to grow his political brand for a future run at a bigger office. Senate or Governor, something like that.


Agree completely. I wonder, since he's toast, along with Beto, Booker, Yang, Inslee, Klobuchar, Gillebrand, Castro, Gabbard, de Blasio, Bullock, Gravel, Bennett, and whoever else I'm forgetting, where the combined ~20% polling for those lost causes is going to go. And Pete has the lion's share of that crowd. Once the ones we know are toast are gone and we're down to Biden, Warren, Bernie, Harris where is that 20% going and how much of it is staying home? Which Dem candidates can speak to those polling for Pete? Bernie can speak to the youngsters, they like him. Warren can speak to the policy people who are behind Inslee and Yang. Biden probably pulls whatever weirdo aliens from Mars are polling at 1% for de Blasio. Bernie probably gets the Gravel Revolution. Also where does the money go? If Pete is out, where do Pete's small donors turn? Warren or Bernie?

I find this interesting because Warren and Bernie are the best candidates, the closest of those with a good chance to a progressive platform, but they are also day and night. One is a career politician, one entered at a late age. One is loud, one is measured. One is famous from the last try, one is new to national politics. One is a lady, one is Jewish, one was an intellectual as a young man, one was a Harvard professor as a remarried mom, one is from New England, one lives there now but is an Okie by birth, one is great with soundbites while one is a policy/plan person, they just couldn't be further apart.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: June 26 19, 11:23 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Posts: 17063
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
G. Keenan wrote:
My personal problem with him is simply that he has such little experience.

After Trump, how can this be an issue? Any sentient human being who understands "if A==B and B==C then A==C" is more qualified to be President than the majority of states thought was experienced enough in 2016.

As Nancy Pelosi said: Please.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: June 26 19, 11:31 am 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 24649
Location: St. Louis
I don't care about Pete's inexperience except it affects (other) voter perception and electability.

...the comparison to people voting for Trump with his lacking,-to negative experience isn't relevant. They found some other reason to look past this -because of butter emails, being a racist, owning the libs, guns and abortion etc

We already know there are a different set of standards and how dumb people are


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: June 26 19, 11:39 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7688
Location: Chicago, IL
We can reset the bar, that's fine. We don't have to live with an incredibly low bar set by Donald Trump. We should have a POTUS with some experience in some combination of government, leadership*, mentorship**, foreign affairs, multi-national business*** and such. We don't just put every baseball player in the HOF because they're better than a guy with a .299 career OBP who hit a home run one time and was a B+ defender.

*Reality TV doesn't apply
**ibid
***Being a slimeball getting over-leveraged on debt then slapping your name on [expletive] doesn't apply either


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: June 26 19, 11:57 am 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21618
Location: Chicago
33anda3rd wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
Spoiler: show
33anda3rd wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
Mayor Pete was never a legit candidate to begin with. He's popular among 538 Twitter followers and pretty much no one else. Frankly, I don't want a 37 year old person who has been a small town mayor for a term and a half to be President. Not qualified. Other than being good at social media I don't know what qualifies him for office.


We have to ask, though: who are the folks polling for him. He's sitting, nationally, in the 4-6% range. FL he's a little higher, MS he's a lot lower, SC, NH, IA he's running more than double his national average. Who are they, the folks telling pollsters they like Pete? Gay Americans voting identity politics? Young people voting on identity politics? Independents who hate Trump and have now identified as Democrats who like that Pete is a plain-spoken, fairly vanilla personality who's entire campaign is being critical of the way things are under Trump? Veterans voting on identity politics?

The autopsies of Clinton 2016, professional and armchair alike, all include acknowledgement that Clinton did not do enough for displaced rust belt workers. Displaced blue collar Americans is a smaller amount of voters than milennials, LGBTQ Americans, and independents who went Trump in 2016 who are not displaced blue collar Americans. I'm not saying displaced workers are irrelevant, I'm saying we acknowledge, correctly IMO, that Clinton lost the election in part on that one small sliver of America, and there's a small sliver out there that likes what Pete has to say. Yes, he's toast. He won't win a single state, not even Indiana if he makes it that long. But he has a floor of support and I'm curious what that base is and how another candidate will speak to it to make sure they come out to vote. I don't think it's illogical, esp based on 2016, to think that if Pete's support is Millennial-fueled, that we are talking about a demographic that has shown they can stay home or throw their vote away (people over 49, only 2% voted Stein, while 9% 29 and under voted for her) and who will need to be engaged.


I haven't looked at any demographic breakdowns re Pete but I'm not surprised that he's sitting on something like 4%. He's very well spoken and very likable. He's a soundbite machine because he's great at making smart, pithy statements on any given topic. National media has given him a lot of play as a result while framing him very flatteringly as a sort of campaign curiosity. Given all the positive exposure and his gifts as a speaker it makes sense to me that he's polling better than half the field.

My personal problem with him is simply that he has such little experience. I think he's a pretty savvy dude who is probably using this moment to grow his political brand for a future run at a bigger office. Senate or Governor, something like that.


Agree completely. I wonder, since he's toast, along with Beto, Booker, Yang, Inslee, Klobuchar, Gillebrand, Castro, Gabbard, de Blasio, Bullock, Gravel, Bennett, and whoever else I'm forgetting, where the combined ~20% polling for those lost causes is going to go. And Pete has the lion's share of that crowd. Once the ones we know are toast are gone and we're down to Biden, Warren, Bernie, Harris where is that 20% going and how much of it is staying home? Which Dem candidates can speak to those polling for Pete? Bernie can speak to the youngsters, they like him. Warren can speak to the policy people who are behind Inslee and Yang. Biden probably pulls whatever weirdo aliens from Mars are polling at 1% for de Blasio. Bernie probably gets the Gravel Revolution. Also where does the money go? If Pete is out, where do Pete's small donors turn? Warren or Bernie?

I find this interesting because Warren and Bernie are the best candidates, the closest of those with a good chance to a progressive platform, but they are also day and night. One is a career politician, one entered at a late age. One is loud, one is measured. One is famous from the last try, one is new to national politics. One is a lady, one is Jewish, one was an intellectual as a young man, one was a Harvard professor as a remarried mom, one is from New England, one lives there now but is an Okie by birth, one is great with soundbites while one is a policy/plan person, they just couldn't be further apart.


My hope is that the some of those Dems will ultimately run for Senate, where applicable in their home states. Isn't John Cornyn up for reelection in 2020? I'm almost personally offended that Beto isn't going after him in Texas. Like, really dude, you came this close to beating Ted Cruz, you can't get the band back together and try again against John Cornyn? What is that, beneath you now, Beto? It would be nice if the candidates who fall out could channel the support they've cultivated into Senate runs because 1) they'd be team players, and 2) maybe that would help drag some of their supporters to the polls. Not sure how many candidates this applies to, but I think 3 or 4 could be running for Senate.

Colorado -- Hickenlooper
Texas -- Beto or Castro
Georgia -- Stacey Abrams, not running for President so what else does she have going on?
Montana -- Steve Bullock

Seems like Hickenlooper, Beto, Castro, and Bullock would all have a better shot at the Senate than the White House.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: June 26 19, 11:58 am 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 28485
Location: extremely online
Well, anything is better than a 0% chance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: June 28 19, 10:28 am 
Offline
Consider him admonished
User avatar

Joined: March 25 15, 9:59 am
Posts: 8268
Location: Charleston, SC via Arkansas


Wonder if he’ll run. I doubt it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: July 1 19, 5:50 am 
Offline
There's someone in my head but it's not me
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 5:08 pm
Posts: 44261
Location: Clowns to the left of me. Jokers to the right. Here I am.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: July 1 19, 8:24 am 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 10:56 pm
Posts: 5733
Location: Tacoma, WA
Chuck Schumer would certainly like to see the no-hopers run for the Senate, where they would actually have a good chance at winning. But the Senate has become so toxic I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to be a senator.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1283 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 ... 129  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Socnorb11 and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group