Current Affairs 2024 POTUS race

[Martin Alvito]

2008 - a young articulate black man with a law background, grass roots organizer and junior senator vs someone who had been in politics most of her life and ate, lived and breathed policy. Regardless of what anyone thinks of her, she at least was a serious person with serious ideas.

vs

a moderate, common sense (relatively) veteran with years of experience in the Senate that had a history of getting bipartisan legislation done.

At least this could have been a reasonable choice until he didn't stick to his guns to cross party lines for his VP choice and instead went with the worst of the right wing lunatics.

Really, this pick for VP was the last straw before the GOP's submission to Trumpism

That general election was fine. I meant the entire field of candidates. The Republican side in 2008 was a mess. Giuliani was the only person with the juice to take a shot at McCain, and he's Giuliani.

The wide-open primary fields during our lifetimes have been clown shows. 1996 Republican, 1992 Democratic, 1988 Democratic...and so forth. It wasn't so much that the candidates were that bad in 1988, as that the entire primary was a complete fiasco from start to finish. Comedians didn't have to do actual work for an entire year.

 

[dylsexicbleu]

Media outlets mocking a candidates lack of reach decide to give said candidate greater reach by giving him more publicity. Whatever happened with the glitchy launch on spaces gave De Santis 2 or 3 times more publicity than it would otherwise. I just wish we had another candidate who gets as much publicity as this. Maybe someone who can gets lots of free media publicity by being deliberately controversial. If on such a candidate existed.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Media outlets mocking a candidates lack of reach decide to give said candidate greater reach by giving him more publicity. Whatever happened with the glitchy launch on spaces gave De Santis 2 or 3 times more publicity than it would otherwise. I just wish we had another candidate who gets as much publicity as this. Maybe someone who can gets lots of free media publicity by being deliberately controversial. If on such a candidate existed.

Is that like dinosaur-age thinking?

 

[dylsexicbleu]

Is that like dinosaur-age thinking?

Sure, yet here we are talking about the De Santis campaign and at the same time linking his name with Elon Musk, one of the most famous and successful men in the world. I'd say the last 24 hrs worked out rather well for De Santis. Just hope he gets trounced this time around. Ron in 28.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Sure, yet here we are talking about the De Santis campaign and at the same time linking his name with Elon Musk, one of the most famous and successful men in the world. I'd say the last 24 hrs worked out rather well for De Santis. Just hope he gets trounced this time around. Ron in 28.

How recent were dinosaurs alive, and were any ever occupying the canary islands for instance?

 

[tsubaki]

I’m not sure he can stop with the woke crap. He’s addicte, lives for it now.

He'll have to if he wants to win. Trump will turn all his fire on him if he thinks he is a plausible alternative; he has to respond in an effective way to it.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[Martin Alvito]

Surprised the gap is that wide. Of course, Clinton had no shot until May of '92, and it took Lehman for Obama to pull ahead for good, so it's real early yet.

 

[Toffee_Loaf]

That general election was fine. I meant the entire field of candidates. The Republican side in 2008 was a mess. Giuliani was the only person with the juice to take a shot at McCain, and he's Giuliani.

The wide-open primary fields during our lifetimes have been clown shows. 1996 Republican, 1992 Democratic, 1988 Democratic...and so forth. It wasn't so much that the candidates were that bad in 1988, as that the entire primary was a complete fiasco from start to finish. Comedians didn't have to do actual work for an entire year.

This is quite an interesting topic. The calibre of politicians is pretty abysmal and yet it doesn't seem to improve over time. In fact it potentially gets worse over time if the only competent people do become President and then have to walk away by law after serving 2 terms.

I think though that the US voter has a much better choice than we do in the UK. There are genuine differences between the parties and even candidates on both sides.

 

[Martin Alvito]

This is quite an interesting topic. The calibre of politicians is pretty abysmal and yet it doesn't seem to improve over time. In fact it potentially gets worse over time if the only competent people do become President and then have to walk away by law after serving 2 terms.

I think though that the US voter has a much better choice than we do in the UK. There are genuine differences between the parties and even candidates on both sides.

The Dem field in '88 had politicians I respected as lawmakers. I just wouldn't have handed many the commander-in-chief hat.

Why is politician quality declining? Well, we went from historical prosperity driven by the Marshall plan, meaning we could pay for things like Medicare, Medicaid and moon landings plus everything else, back to normal service. The education system rotted from within. Primary and secondary schools were starved of funding by the right for things like school vouchers, and universities became for-profit (endowment growth w/o taxation), customer-service oriented entities at the undergraduate level rather than institutions of learning.

The evening news became a profit center after the equal time doctrine repeal, Limbaugh first cracked the code on opinion news and the left followed suit soon enough. DeLay and Pelosi changed our politics from legislating to fundraising, the better to strongarm the rank-and-file in an era of thin House majorities. The Senate quit being a deliberative body and a brake on the House, and became an obstructionist body with the ability to ratify treaties and confirm or deny nominations, especially judges.

TL;DR: In '52 and '56 Eisenhower runs and wins. In '96 and '00 Colin Powell's wife tells him he can't stick his hand into that bear trap. Both win in their sleep, if they run.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Surprised the gap is that wide. Of course, Clinton had no shot until May of '92, and it took Lehman for Obama to pull ahead for good, so it's real early yet.

Iowa went 54% Trump 45% Biden in 2020 so the current 11pt gap is in the same ballpark. What will be interesting is any of the swing state polling for both Trump and De Santis vs Biden.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[tsubaki]

The Dem field in '88 had politicians I respected as lawmakers. I just wouldn't have handed many the commander-in-chief hat.

Why is politician quality declining? Well, we went from historical prosperity driven by the Marshall plan, meaning we could pay for things like Medicare, Medicaid and moon landings plus everything else, back to normal service. The education system rotted from within. Primary and secondary schools were starved of funding by the right for things like school vouchers, and universities became for-profit (endowment growth w/o taxation), customer-service oriented entities at the undergraduate level rather than institutions of learning.

The evening news became a profit center after the equal time doctrine repeal, Limbaugh first cracked the code on opinion news and the left followed suit soon enough. DeLay and Pelosi changed our politics from legislating to fundraising, the better to strongarm the rank-and-file in an era of thin House majorities. The Senate quit being a deliberative body and a brake on the House, and became an obstructionist body with the ability to ratify treaties and confirm or deny nominations, especially judges.

TL;DR: In '52 and '56 Eisenhower runs and wins. In '96 and '00 Colin Powell's wife tells him he can't stick his hand into that bear trap. Both win in their sleep, if they run.

Agree with most of this but not that last bit. Powell wasn't anywhere near as sharp as Eisenhower was - in fact Ike may have been the sharpest US President of them all, he had nearly everything sussed.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Agree with most of this but not that last bit. Powell wasn't anywhere near as sharp as Eisenhower was - in fact Ike may have been the sharpest US President of them all, he had nearly everything sussed.

Fair, but I don't have a problem with Powell driving the bus on the military and foreign relations, which is the majority of what a president actually does. Powell delegates much of the remaining functions to the Cabinet, as that problem is far too big for one individual. The veto power is substantive, but there are only three presidents (FDR, Reagan, Trump) who have pushed Congress around in the last century, and only Reagan managed to do that without party control.

My point on candidate strength was that in '52, a strong candidate like Ike chooses to run. Half a century later, a strong candidate from that arena refuses. These days, it's usually the probable nominee, senators and governors not up for re-election pursuing a national profile, and a few fame-chasers with no shot.