42%
- Thread starter my_2cents
- Start date
We also have elections but they are not as fair as yours. In last 30 yrs two political parties dominated but neither one of them won consecutive terms they alternated.
Then came military dictator after him they again won alternate elections and most of their top leaders are $ billionaire.
Finally we have a government that seems to be more law abiding, several leaders of the previous govts are in jail as are some ministers of the present govt.
If we get a run of 20 yrs of honest govt Pakistan would be a different country.
I was at a dinner where a VP of bank of america was the chief guest and he said he had never seen more hard working people than in Pakistan and wondered why we were not progressing.
Then came military dictator after him they again won alternate elections and most of their top leaders are $ billionaire.
Finally we have a government that seems to be more law abiding, several leaders of the previous govts are in jail as are some ministers of the present govt.
If we get a run of 20 yrs of honest govt Pakistan would be a different country.
I was at a dinner where a VP of bank of america was the chief guest and he said he had never seen more hard working people than in Pakistan and wondered why we were not progressing.
As you know, 42% approval rating is not good. I do agree though that Trump’s base will come out to vote but I also believe Democrats will come out too. I also think a non-white candidate could easily inspire enough Democrats and Independents to vote for her/him in order to defeat Trump.
Harris, for example, would get a very similar coalition of voters as to what Obama got in '08 and '12. As would some of the other Democratic candidates. Also, I think someone like Harris would be able to get enough hardcore Sanders supporters to come and vote for her. Yes, Trump supporters won't vote for her but a committed Trump supporter isn't going to vote for any Democrat.
Do you believe the Democrats need to nominate Sanders?
@Syskatine is this from Alex Jones? Skin color is the most important thing to a huge percent of your rabid team.
Not for me. I could care less what race or gender the Democratic nominee is.
Obama did not win because he was black. He is an exceptional man with communication skills comparable to Reagan. Intellectually gifted and very astute student of American politics.
I dont think Kamala has it. She has been a successful prosecutor but lacks Obamas charisma. While Trump was on his recent trip to Europe they showed how much people liked the two presidents. Obama 71% Trump 22%.
Sanders too way off on social issues and I dont think he would get the nomination.
The person I like is mayor Pete definitely the brightest of the lot but being married gay could be big hanidicap unless Lindsay Graham comes out of the closet.
I agree. I posted on another thread that Obama was like Reagan.
I think it is way too early to reach this conclusion about Harris. It is still very early in the process. Keep in mind, at this point in 2007, Hilary Clinton was the odds on favorite to win the nomination in '08 and Obama was just seen as a junior Senator from Illinois who was a long shot.
I think Harris has all pieces she needs. We will just have to wait and see if she is able to put all those pieces together.
I just asked because you were making an argument that I hear a lot from Sanders supporters.
I don't know if I would say he is the brightest of the lot, but I like him too. I think he is too inexperienced though and isn't ready to be President.
Last edited:
Tells me all I need to know about which president is good for America and which wasn't.
Is he less experienced than DJT ? Rhodes scholar afghan veteran and a mayor
good communicator,at least reads books. I dont think he has a chance but some one like him without a lot of questions because of his experience like Biden.
I didn't believe Trump had the necessary experience either. One of the reasons I didn't support him in 2016. And other Democrats thought the same.
So why should we all of a sudden contradict ourselves and support a thirty something mayor from South Bend for President?
Like Obama
he is a good communicator has some experience of city management
remember Obama was a junior senator with about a year of experience in washington.
Educated and a vet, LIke i said he has no chance but is better than Tulsi as far as
policies he has announced.
he is a good communicator has some experience of city management
remember Obama was a junior senator with about a year of experience in washington.
Educated and a vet, LIke i said he has no chance but is better than Tulsi as far as
policies he has announced.
Obama was a brilliant orator...
...as long as he could read his script on the TelePrompTer.
IMO, Buttigieg wants to be the keynote speaker at the DNC this year. He probably also has his eye on the VP spot (long shot), a cabinet position, and/or building name recognition for future political campaigns.
If you're putting faith in Harris to get the same type of coalition of voters as President Obama I've got ocean front property in Arizona for you to look at.
Not breaking news but this election will be strictly determined by Moderate Independents in the Midwest - she's got major problems in two areas
1) She is failing on "Likeability" behind Biden, Sanders, Mayor Pete, and she's neck and neck with Warren. At least Warren is putting forward plans of action to tackle problems (whether they are crappy ideas is another issue). Harris is the Captain Marvel of the group and on paper is THE perfect candidate for the Dems but having a personality similar to cardboard isn't in her favor. Outside of California she has major major problems.
2) On the scale of perceived ideology she's seen as more liberal in her policies versus all but 1 candidate on the trail (Sanders). This likely plays into #1 because Sanders has been very upfront about his views. Harris is more radical than Biden, Buttigieg, and Warren but
https://www.businessinsider.com/202...-candidates-political-spectrum-ranking-2019-5
I don't disagree that she faces challenges. All of the candidates do though. That is what running for President is all about.
I do believe though that Harris can assemble the same type of coalition that Obama did given the chance.. I also believe Biden could do this as well, along with a few others if they can find a way to break through in the primaries.
I would also agree that Harris is to the left of Biden (so was Obama) but that could work in her favor when it comes to winning the nomination and holding the Sanders left during the general election (as Obama did). Harris is positioned well right now in the party.
She just needs to finish strong enough in Iowa and NH to stay in the game and get to Nevada/South Carolina. Whether she can do that or not is an open question.
The Dem party nomination winner will undoubtedly receive the backing of the DNC from funding standpoint but forming a coalition of voters the size of Obama is another story and this goes for all candidates. President Obama was the perfect storm coming off of a Bush presidency, had a simplified and cohesive message of change, and the embrace of being the 1st Black Presidential Candidate from a major party. Ok so is it possible that Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, etc come up with a coalition like Obama, sure? But that percentage is super low.
She's consistently running 5th in both Iowa and NH, and she's 3rd in her own state of California. To even have a chance she needs to pass up Sanders, Buttiegeg, and Warren - I don't see that happening.
She's a VP candidate IMO but is her ego too big to be Biden's running mate?
I disagree. That same perfect storm you speak of can be assembled coming off four years of a Trump presidency. Harris, if she is the nominee, will have a message of change just as Obama did. So would Biden and most any other Democratic nomination. Not to mention that Harris would be the first black woman (and Indian woman) presidential candidate from a major party. And she could be the first woman President.
btw, I never posted that Warren or Sanders could come up with the same coalition as Obama. I just referenced Harris and Biden. Sanders would have a different type of coalition but one I think could win the election. Warren, IMO, is the candidate the Trump campaign should want to run against. Out of the top tier of Democratic candidates right now, I believe Trump stands the best chance against Warren.
Yep, she has some work to do in Iowa and NH. I don't disagree and that is why I posted she needs strong finishes there. But she has plenty of time and a lot of campaigning left. Not to mention the debates.
A lot is going to change in this field before February 3. Nothing is settled.
Biden/Harris makes a lot of sense. As does Sanders/Harris.
Again, Harris has positioned herself well for the upcoming nomination fight. Even if she can't get the top spot, she is an ideal candidate for VP. And if all else fails, she is a candidate for the AG spot, if she wants it.
The problem I foresee when it comes to the debate stage for Harris is that she needs to show she is more creative, if she's going to play the I'm a lawyer card and know how to create the case against Trump she's not going to go far. Those are talking points, and honestly pretty boring ones, played out narratives in the public. We've heard those same points for a couple of years now. You need to be different. Sanders and Warren are different for policy reasons and proactive in developing plans of action, Biden has more experience in politics than all of them and the backing of the DNC + Media, Mayor Pete is the media darling and while being white, he's a gay man and veteran.
Harris is more boring than the white guys in the field and that's a major problem IMO.
Don't underestimate fatigue factor also coming in when it comes to Harris and Warren when pitching the 1st Female President angle as well. Being a woman doesn't help overcome a poor candidacy.
I think Harris gets just enough support where she hangs on past May/June and it's going to be too late for a Biden/Harris ticket. Biden will need to choose a strong VP, and IMO pretty early in the process to continue separation from his strongest competitor Sanders.
To date, Harris has done well in the town hall meetings. She also has done well when the spotlight was on her in the committee hearings.
She definitely needs to do well in the debates, as does any candidate. I also think she does need to make the case against Trump and how she would be the best candidate to run against him, especially now in the primaries. Making the case against Trump is not a played out narrative among either Democrats are a majority of Americans right now.
I do agree though that Harris and the other candidates also have to make the case for why they should be the one to replace Trump. That will come though. Again, we are early in the process here.
I don't see this. And in talking to my Democratic friends, this is not what I hear at all.
Whenever Harris has the stage, Democrats like her and are excited by what she says and how she says it.
Harris would be a strong VP choice and she would be acceptable to almost all the Democratic coalitions. That is why I keep saying she has positioned herself well.
Look, I agree with you that Harris has challenges ahead of her. And she very well may not get the nomination (Biden and Sanders have a lot of support right now). However, I think you and many on the right are underestimating her, similar to how those on the right did Obama in 2008, especially early on. Harris has a lot going for her. As I've posted before, she just needs to put all the pieces together. Will she be able to? We have have to wait and see.
For someone who puts a lot of stock in polls you seem to be ignoring some big findings, especially when looking at the stances and political posturing (and comments) Harris has done in her very recent past
1) Americans by a large majority do not want to see Impeachment proceedings against President Trump (plays into general election)
2) Kamala comments in the Kavanaugh hearings were political theatre at best and in the eyes of some voters a slap in the face of due process
3) She has touted herself as a Progressive Prosecutor but when faced with opportunities for criminal justice reformation she has largely balked at changes and stuck with the status quo (Reduction of certain crimes in California to Misdemeanors, upholding the Death Penalty, opposing bill for body cameras on police officers)
Her record honestly sucks from a Progressive standpoint and is all talk and no bite.
Again, from a Moderate perspective, if she wants to play the tough attorney card you have to have the results to back it up...she doesn't and comes off as phony. When you have a track record of in action (or in some cases outright failure), you are in the middle of the pack for likeability, and have cookie cutter policy ideas you aren't a viable candidate to be President of the United States.
If the Dems are focused on taking back the White House you have to get behind Biden or Sanders to have a shot in the Mid West.
Edit: Adding Mayor Pete in there as a possible 3rd to consider.
Actually support for impeachment is slowly growing and when you combine support for impeachment with support for continuing congressional investigation, there is usually a plurality of support and sometimes a slim majority.
But yes, Americans are greatly divided on this issue.
In the eyes of "some voters," you mean Trump voters?
Harris did her job and did it well in the Kavanaugh hearings. I know she upset those on the right. So be it.
I would both agree and disagree with this. I think her record as a "progressive" prosecutor is mixed.
I don't really think it matters though.
I disagree with this. She has the results to back up her talk. And she is tough (one reason she drives Republicans crazy at those committee hearings). I'd love to see her debate Trump.
The whole "phony" line sounds like a right-wing talking point.
I agree about Biden and Sanders and I would also add Harris to that list. There are some other candidates too, but I am not sure they will be able to break through soon enough in the nomination fight.
Why would you add Buttigieg to that list?
I would add Buttigieg because he's more likeable, is relatively more moderate in his views than Harris, doesn't have the political baggage that he would need to wade through, and still checks the boxes for those that believe in identity politics.
Of course there is pandering to some to get their vote, it's politics, but Harris' attempts come off as flat and lacking of personality. Her CNN interviews are at times awkward to say the least.
If I'm a Democrat and I'm going to support a woman (one that has a chance, I like Tulsi a lot but not enough buzz) it's Warren.
You have to imagine these candidates going toe-to-toe with Trump on the big stage and Trump will cut through the Harris talking points with his non-PC style.
Biden, Sanders, Buttiegeg, and Warren are just sharper and have more of a shine. Harris has struggled even with her attacks on Kavanaugh, Barr, etc. Those tv sound bites have gotten her to 8-9 points in the polls, that's awesome! (Blue)
I think Warren is exactly who Trump wants to run against. As a Democrat, if you like Warren, you should just vote for Sanders. Sanders would have a better shot at Trump than Warren.
Trump has Warren's number.
I am and I completely disagree with you that Trump would cut through Harris. I think Harris would run circles around Trump in a debate. She would completely dismantle him.
Are you a Republican or Democrat? Trump supporter?
I don't see it with Harris and this is me speaking as a moderate who will be tuned in to every debate. I don't see her dismantling Trump. I see a brawl coming no matter the candidate. Biden, Sanders, Harris especially won't pull punches and have more weight behind those attempts to inflict damage.
On the political spectrum I'm just a wink right of center. So there is your context.
Shun me to the side with that information at hand.
Are you a Trump supporter?
And I am not trying to shun you, just asking. I am a Democrat and of course, not a Trump supporter.
I plan on watching all the debates too. We should talk after the debates next week. A lot of variables at play in those two debates next week.
And as for Harris & Warren, we clearly disagree. And that is ok.
I was not a Trump supporter during the 2016 election process but voted for him instead of Hillary.
So far I would consider myself undecided with Biden being the front runner, if he chooses the right VP I will have myself a conundrum and even more tuned into the Presidential Debates between Trump and Biden.
Are you a member of the Republican Party or an independent?
I am undecided when it comes to who I support for the Democratic nominee. I like a number of the candidates. I will definitely vote for whoever wins the nomination though.
Registered Republican technically.
With the exception of Abortion viewpoints I am very socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
I use to be a Republican as well. I was actually, at one time, socially conservative and fiscally liberal. As I have grown older though, I have become more liberal on social issues.
I left the Republican Party in 2016 and became a Democrat.
As I have gotten older (I'm 29, nearing the dreaded 30 mark in a few months), I have seen myself grow more fiscally conservative (lower taxes, smaller government in most cases)
and more socially liberal.
As long as individual freedoms are preserved you can generally find me on the side of more progressive social causes.
Yes. For a number of years, the only reason I remained a Republican was because of my position on issues such as abortion. Once I began to change my views on those issues, there really was no reason to remain a Republican. Also, I wanted nothing to do with a political party that would nominate a demagogue like Trump or a party that would endorse the rhetoric/viewpoints he advocated.
I was always a TDR-Eisenhower-Rockefeller type Republican, although Rockefeller Republicans tended to be socially liberal. A moderate to progressive Republican.
Last edited:
I would necessarily call him a Demagogue, more of just a non-PC asshole that went up against a historically bad candidate in Hillary Clinton who forgot her map and didn't listen to her campaign consultants. "You're trying to win a general election ma'am make an appearance in Wisconsin and don't call half of America Deplorables." We'd be having a much different discussion today if she wasn't so naive.
