Work on Amazon Mechanical Turk, learn from the best, and have fun doing it. Join the crowd today!
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Social Discussion' started by electrolyte, Sep 26, 2016.
I think Oprah or The Rock could potentially defeat Trump. Probably not Michelle. Actually I very much doubt Michelle. Actually I think she has no chance. I used to think Zuckerberg had a shot, but I think his prospects have gone way down. I don't foresee any Democratic politician defeating Trump at all. I think Howard Schultz would be defeated too, especially after the recent news that Starbucks is closing multiple stores. I can't see why Oprah would run though. I'd bet on Cory Booker being the strongest politician nominee, but losing. That would still increase his position relative to others. But I think the The Rock is the best option the Democrats have for winning, as crazy as that sounds. Basically, the only woman I could foresee possibly defeating Trump is Oprah, but I can't see her running. If I were a Democratic billionaire - actually I'm not - I would focus my efforts on getting my fellow Democratic billionaires to get Oprah or The Rock to run. But hey this is an mturk forum, so I can think hard for 30 seconds and opine on what I'd do if I were actually a Democratic billionaire...
We think very much alike
I don't think anyone from your post will come close to winning the Democratic primary. Gonna go through this one by one with my opinions:
-Oprah should be DQ'ed from winning the Democratic primary because she's a billionaire with no real political experience. Nominating Oprah would show that the Democrats have learned nothing and will continue to be seen as an elitist out-of-touch party. You can't spend years mocking the Republicans for nominating a celebrity billionaire for president and then you go and nominate a celebrity billionaire for president.
-The thought of The Rock as a nominee is a total joke. The only people who think it would be cool if he was a legit candidate are privileged people who see politics as a form of entertainment and nothing else.
-Zuckerberg has zero chance of doing anything, thank god
-Howard Schultz will get 2% of the vote in Iowa and drop out. He appeals to nothing the democratic base wants.
-I don't know who Cory Booker's base is. Leftists hate him. The moderate/liberal wing of the party mostly likes him, but they like potential nominees like Kamala Harris or Joe Biden even more. He'd sortof be the Dem version of 2016 Marco Rubio.
It's pretty early to even worry about 2020. So much will happen between now and then, and there's a significant chance that Trump won't even be the Republican nominee. That being said, it's very unlikely that 2020 will be a celebrity showdown.
Democrats care about policy, and as impressive as people like Oprah and The Rock might be in general, not too many people consider them leading authorities on the complexities of our health care system. There will probably also be a somewhat heightened desire for administrative competence among voters in general. Whatever anyone may think about the Trump admin's policies, they are clearly incompetent when it comes to managing the executive branch of government. Like with their original travel ban and their recent attempted rollback of family separation, many of their policies are completely incoherent, possibly illegal, and not coordinated at all with the proper authorities ahead of time, leading to frequent train wrecks . The political effects of having an admin that isn't knowledgeable of how the federal government works is probably significant over a 4 year span.
The best Democratic match ups vs. Trump aren't celebrities or young progressives. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are both better match ups, because they are old white guys, with Bernie having some anti establishment cred and Biden taking away some of the crazy-grandpa-that's-liable-to-say-anything vote. People shouldn't care so much about match ups and polls though. Good candidates with good positions that they are sincere about tend to do much better than candidates who chase polls or are engineered to be the bane of their opponent.
I don't disagree with most of your analysis. I think celebrity or ultra-rich candidates would have a very hard time winning the Democratic primary, but they are also the sort of candidates most likely to defeat Trump, given how weak the actual Democratic politicians are.
After thinking about this though, I think there is an actual Democratic politician who would have a fighting chance against Trump, namely, Tulsi Gabbard. I could foresee situations in which she could win both the Democratic primary and the general election. She rejected the DNC corruption and endorsed Bernie Sanders, but she has also pointedly rejected the anti-Trump hysteria that has gripped much of the left, and could win votes from Trump voters. She strikes me as both a real person and a rather crafty politician, sort of like Trump actually.
I wouldn't bet on it. James Garfield is the only sitting house member to ever be elected president, and that was in 1881, so that's been a while. I don't think any reps have even won a party nomination in modern history.
Presidential re election campaigns are decided almost entirely by the public's perception of the performance of the incumbent. Barring some sort of big post-nomination scandal, anyone who wins the Democratic nomination would be likely to beat Trump if he is unpopular at the time. Likewise, if he is popular at the time and running, he would likely win, regardless of opponent.
I also don't think most political strategists would classify the 2020 Democratic field as weak. It's going to be a huge field, because 2020 is projected to be much more winnable than most at this point. Some of those candidates would be weak in a 1v1 as the nominee and some wouldn't. Imo, the two interesting things to see will be how far left the party veers due to the huge amounts of negative energy on the fringes, and if Andrew Yang (super smart/rich UBI guy) will draw any attention.
In a primary tonight a 28-year-old DSA member who has been calling to abolish ICE just crushed one of the top-ranking House Democrats. First bit of actually hopeful/positive news I've read in a while.
Well, this didn't last long.
I wish I could think of a thing to say. It's just so terrible. I'm so angry with this last election - at people who voted for Trump and those that sat it out.
Elections have consequences - and we'll suffer because of that for (it looks like) more than a generation.
Welp, I'm done with 2018, fuck this entire year.
The Onion, as always, expressing my feelings better than I can.
This Saturday. Find an event near you, and go.
Even for Hannity the last half of this clip is hilarious. This woman is so scary with her extreme views like...supporting seniors, women's rights, and clean campaign finance.
I'm a moderate, and a conservative. I see myself more as an observer of our politics rather than an activist because I am enthralled with learning about "how we do our politics," understanding our "moral matrices," and why we believe what we do. I've been a democrat, and a republican, so I've seen issues and questions from both sides of the aisle. Presently I do not identify with either party because they both too often distort truth and mislead us for their own gains. But I also believe there are honorable, sincere men and women in both parties. (I've avoided commenting here because I should be Turking instead, but ... whatever) The below is EXACTLY my thinking and has been for decades.
I agree with what that guy is saying as a general rule, but not all ideas are equal and not everything is worthy of being met with civility. If people want to debate climate change and supply side economics, okay. If people proclaim that AIDS and 9/11 are God's retribution on mankind for homosexuality, we don't need to have a civil conversation about that, and doing so actually does more harm than good by elevating the status of something from idiotic to debatable. That's an extreme example, but there's a lot of things being said right now by people in the highest echelons on power that aren't much less ridiculous and don't warrant a civil response.
I'll entertain calls for peace and civility from Fox News(!) when old white men stop trying to dictate what women are allowed to do with our uteruses and stop trying to take away women's healthcare in general, tyvm
"...there's a lot of things being said right now by people in the highest echelons on power that aren't much less ridiculous and don't warrant a civil response." Can you elucidate please, and then I'll come back and address your post when I don't have 14 beer in my system.
Sure. We have a president that quite often says things that are demonstrably false and intended to mislead the public, as well as just being shitty things to say. He claimed that Obama wasn't born in the US, that crime was at the highest levels it had been in decades, that illegal aliens are pouring in and riddling the country with crime, that Ted Cruz's dad helped kill JFK, that everyone is going to have amazing health care at a tiny fraction of the cost, that white supremacists are very fine people, that the government did an A+ job in Puerto Rico and that Puerto Ricans just want everything done for them, that he has nothing to do with Russia, that the only reason his campaign and admin are being investigated is because of a secret liberal deep state conspiracy, that we don't need any more people from shithole countries, that Democrats are responsible the huge spike in family separations at the border, that nobody needs to worry about North Korea anymore, etc. Imo it's amazing that things are still as civil as they are, and it's a little amusing how many people are suddenly concerned about it after Sarah Sanders got kicked out of a restaurant.
In that video that you posted, 3 out of the 4 people there at least tried, but it still wasn't possible to even put together 10 minutes without fanning the flames in a segment specifically about not fanning the flames. There still had to be a right wing hack in there calling the congressional baseball shooter a Bernie bro and giving lots of examples of left wing crazies doing crazy things. People should understand what's going on there and how dishonest it is. Every large group of people has some people that are bad and/or crazy, so literally anyone can be irrationally vilified in this way. The president does the same thing regularly, most notably when he tries to convince people that immigrants are generally criminals with any anecdotes he can gather on crimes committed by immigrants.
Fwiw, I think the criticism of Maxine Waters was fair and that public officials and people with large platforms should be held to a high standard, but at the same time, I have absolutely 0 sympathy for anyone that gets caught up in a public wildfire that they themselves helped to create for their own personal benefit. When the president and media outlets spend their time trolling every single day, they shouldn't be whining when it works.