Page 82 of 1306 FirstFirst ... 32728081828384921321825821082 ... LastLast
Results 1,621 to 1,640 of 26103
  1. #1621
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Green View Post
    ... Which candidate meets this criteria? ...
    Klobuchar, Harris, Warren, Gilibrand, Gabbard ... basically, coalesce around *any* woman, and then have that woman run to the middle. Whether a woman emerges, who knows? I think if one does, and she runs to the middle, that increases the chances of victory for the Democrats.

  2. #1622
    I know this thread is explicitly not supposed to discuss policy, but geez it's depressing to see all the discussion over "ticking boxes." I wish/hope folks will/would vote based on actual issues rather than how much a candidate looks like them.
    Let's go Duke!

  3. #1623
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    2. Although it didn't really manifest itself in 2016, there have been polls (and the 2018 Senate race) hinting that Texas could be a swing state in the near future. Focusing on Texas would be a more high-risk high-reward strategy, but it's something that Democrats could at least consider.
    Yes, I think you can see a change in Senator Cruz's behavior as he tacks more to the middle at least on social issues. At least he is more open about it in the last month or so.

  4. #1624
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    Though I agree that some of this, I want to push back against this idea that I see in a lot of places that the only right strategy is to focus very heavily on white voters in midwestern swing states. That is a certainly a valid strategy, but it is not the only one:

    1. Detroit is a city with a population of 600,000+ that is 80%+ black. Trump won Michigan by 10,000 votes. So a relatively minor increase in voter turnout in Michigan's largest city would give the state to Democrats (a 2% increase in turnout in Detroit would have done it in 2016).

    2. Although it didn't really manifest itself in 2016, there have been polls (and the 2018 Senate race) hinting that Texas could be a swing state in the near future. Focusing on Texas would be a more high-risk high-reward strategy, but it's something that Democrats could at least consider.
    There ya go, now Jason will now have to tell us once again that Georgia is in play I hope he's not holding his breath on that one. Georgia, the "Somewhat Close But No Cigar" state.

  5. #1625
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    I know this thread is explicitly not supposed to discuss policy, but geez it's depressing to see all the discussion over "ticking boxes." I wish/hope folks will/would vote based on actual issues rather than how much a candidate looks like them.
    I don't think the two (issues; looks) are mutually exclusive ... we have a country with a sordid history of legal, racial oppression ... so, if I care about overcoming what I see are the vestiges of that, and I can vote for a candidate who looks like the historically oppressed, maybe that's very reasonable of me to guess that the candidate will be especially sensitive to that history and make overcoming it a priority, an issue I care about ... if I believe women are treated as second class citizens in terms of wages or power, and I can vote for a woman who may be particularly sensitive to that history (as I see it) and will work to overcome it, I'm voting for an issue. In both of these examples, the voter need not be a member of the historically oppressed or a woman (that is, the voter need not look like the candidate), but the voter is rationally making certain plausible assumptions of the candidate based on certain external factors that the candidate will be caring about the same issues the voter cares about. People vote for who they positively identify with. It's reasonable to think that a candidate who has experienced a life where the candidate -- due to immutable characteristics -- might've encountered issues that I care about will be particularly sensitive to those issues.

    People want to be heard and understood and cared about and will vote for those who give them that feeling. Sometimes, race or gender factors into that -- not just on the basis of the race or gender itself, but based on issues tied to race and gender, if that makes sense. Trump is sort of the counter-example of this in a way: he's not a poor, uneducated Midwesterner, but those folks felt heard and understood by Trump. Yet, other times, voters will identify with the candidate based in part on immutable characteristics. It doesn't strike me as irrational or particularly pernicious on the part of the voter, or as ignoring issues.

  6. #1626
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    On the Road to Nowhere
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    I know this thread is explicitly not supposed to discuss policy, but geez it's depressing to see all the discussion over "ticking boxes." I wish/hope folks will/would vote based on actual issues rather than how much a candidate looks like them.
    Aw, that's so sweet! You're drinking early today.

    But seriously, for that to work, wouldn't others have to NOT not vote for a candidate because of their race/gender?

  7. #1627
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    Aw, that's so sweet! You're drinking early today.

    But seriously, for that to work, wouldn't others have to NOT not vote for a candidate because of their race/gender?
    Well... yeah. In this (obviously hypothetical scenario) people wouldn't neither vote nor not vote based on age/gender/skin/etc. I'd be perfectly fine with that. I suspect that's not happening this go round. Or the next several.
    Let's go Duke!

  8. #1628
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    ... age/gender/skin/etc ...
    And I think people will always vote on "looks" to some degree and it'll never be based strictly on issues set out in candidates' policy papers. To me, President Obama always looked "cool" (composed). I think that "look" resonated with certain/many voters -- hey, this guy will be faced with stressful times, he looks like he can keep his head (and that's important to me) and make a rational decision. And there are all sorts of non-issue-based affiliations that may sway a voter: hey, this guy was a decorated military hero, and I care about a strong defense and being bold in the world and I bet he'll do that ... (but then you do have to look at the issues, too, as Geo McGovern was a decorated military hero and perhaps wouldn't line up issue-wise with that voter).

  9. #1629
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    ^ e.g. the taller person (guy) usually wins.

  10. #1630
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    ^ e.g. the taller person (guy) usually wins.
    Taller and better looking guy usually wins.


    Hey, why am I not running?!?
    "We are not provided with wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the wilderness which no one else can take for us, an effort which no one can spare us, for our wisdom is the point of view from which we come at last to regard the world." --M. Proust

  11. #1631
    Quote Originally Posted by Reilly View Post
    And I think people will always vote on "looks" to some degree and it'll never be based strictly on issues set out in candidates' policy papers. To me, President Obama always looked "cool" (composed). I think that "look" resonated with certain/many voters -- hey, this guy will be faced with stressful times, he looks like he can keep his head (and that's important to me) and make a rational decision. And there are all sorts of non-issue-based affiliations that may sway a voter: hey, this guy was a decorated military hero, and I care about a strong defense and being bold in the world and I bet he'll do that ... (but then you do have to look at the issues, too, as Geo McGovern was a decorated military hero and perhaps wouldn't line up issue-wise with that voter).
    I mean, I think even the "who would you rather share a beer with" test is better than flat out appearance in my book. But I'd still prefer "well, I like his/her policy on healthcare/immigration/climate."
    Let's go Duke!

  12. #1632
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    But I'd still prefer "well, I like his/her policy on healthcare/immigration/climate."
    I believe the overwhelming majority of folks participating in this thread agree with you. The discussion focus is on the voting public which drives the conversation toward "ticking boxes."
    Bob Green

  13. #1633
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    I mean, I think even the "who would you rather share a beer with" test is better than flat out appearance in my book. But I'd still prefer "well, I like his/her policy on healthcare/immigration/climate."
    Well, I think who we'd rather share a beer with can be influenced by the other's looks ... go to some bar on a Friday night and see who's getting offered free beers!

    Looks can reflect certain interior qualities (Richard III, Shakespeare). I think President Obama *is* reflective and analytical, and that manifests itself in his cool/composed look. Other people have a haughty, arrogant, disdainful look, and it may very well reflect that they have those unpleasant qualities and deploy them. Nixon looked a little shady (which Herblock knew -- though he gave him one free shave: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-shave/283131/).

  14. #1634
    Quote Originally Posted by Reilly View Post
    Well, I think who we'd rather share a beer with can be influenced by the other's looks ... go to some bar on a Friday night and see who's getting offered free beers!

    Looks can reflect certain interior qualities (Richard III, Shakespeare). I think President Obama *is* reflective and analytical, and that manifests itself in his cool/composed look. Other people have a haughty, arrogant, disdainful look, and it may very well reflect that they have those unpleasant qualities and deploy them. Nixon looked a little shady (which Herblock knew -- though he gave him one free shave: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-shave/283131/).
    I would say that personality qualities such as "intelligent," "empathetic," or "brave" would also be legitimate voting criteria. Though, I guess the blessing and curse of free elections is you can chose your own voting criteria.
       

  15. #1635
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    I know this thread is explicitly not supposed to discuss policy, but geez it's depressing to see all the discussion over "ticking boxes." I wish/hope folks will/would vote based on actual issues rather than how much a candidate looks like them.
    The odds that 45 out of 45 Presidents would be men by random chance are less than 1 in 30 trillion (or, less than 0.000000000003%). If you want to be generous and only count the 17 Presidents that served after women could vote, the odds are less than 1 in 100000 (or, less than 0.0008%).

    I agree with you that it'd be best to not vote based on gender, race, or age. But the direction to which you're implying that happens is exactly opposite to the way it actually happens the vast majority (but not all) of the time.
    Last edited by Wander; 07-13-2019 at 04:22 PM.

  16. #1636
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    The odds that 45 out of 45 Presidents would be men by random chance are less than 1 in 30 trillion (or, less than 0.000000000003%). If you want to be generous and only count the 17 Presidents that served after women could vote, the odds are less than 1 in 100000 (or, less than 0.0008%).

    I agree with you that it'd be best to not vote based on gender, race, or age. But the direction to which you're implying that happens is exactly opposite to the way it actually happens the vast majority (but not all) of the time.
    Oh, I was being wishful.
       

  17. #1637
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    Oh, I was being wishful.
    I hear ya. The fact that one of top 5 Presidential contenders is gay and that it's barely been an issue (so far) would have been unthinkable as early as a decade ago. Maybe we'll get there in other ways too. Progress does happen occasionally...

  18. #1638
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    I hear ya. The fact that one of top 5 Presidential contenders is gay and that it's barely been an issue (so far) would have been unthinkable as early as a decade ago. Maybe we'll get there in other ways too. Progress does happen occasionally...
    I hope that's true, but he's really not polling all that well for a guy that has stated popular policies in a national forum. Obviously, there is no way to compare, but in an alternate universe it would be interesting to see his numbers if his being gay wasn't known. I have a hunch they would be much, much higher.
    His even being on the stage IS progress, but I think America has a long way to go before we see true acceptance.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  19. #1639
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    On the Road to Nowhere
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I hope that's true, but he's really not polling all that well for a guy that has stated popular policies in a national forum. Obviously, there is no way to compare, but in an alternate universe it would be interesting to see his numbers if his being gay wasn't known. I have a hunch they would be much, much higher.
    His even being on the stage IS progress, but I think America has a long way to go before we see true acceptance.
    I think his bigger problem is that his highest elective office is mayor of the 4th largest city in Indiana.

  20. #1640
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    I think his bigger problem is that his highest elective office is mayor of the 4th largest city in Indiana.
    I don't view that as a problem...I view that as amazingly impressive. In fact, it's possible, maybe even likely, had he not been gay, Buttigieg would not have made it onto the national stage. He probably would have easily been lost in a crowd of dozens of other mayors of midlevel cities. But, he proved that he was electable.
    Double edged sword. Hopefully he parlays his success into bigger things, such as the senate. Then perhaps, down the road...
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

Similar Threads

  1. MLB 2020 HOF Election
    By Blue in the Face in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-24-2020, 12:28 PM
  2. Presidential Inauguration
    By such in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •