Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

Status
Not open for further replies.
waiguoren said:
Ok. Whose alt account are you?




I already wrote that this is very likely. Again, my point is that she would be among the strongest to take Trump on.
Click to expand...

So Avenatti said he wouldn't run, but Booker is still a top 5 prospect. Want to back out of our bet? You can get out with the low low price of reinstating JVS's signature.
 
Trotsky said:
So Avenatti said he wouldn't run, but Booker is still a top 5 prospect. Want to back out of our bet? You can get out with the low low price of reinstating JVS's signature.
Click to expand...

Nope. His sig stays.
 
Hunter Simpson said:
I think Kloubachar will suffer a name recognition deficit. So, agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Definitely considering people aren’t even getting her name right in the thread (Klobuchar). I’ve finally managed to remember it today but it’s taken some time to finally stick.
 
Trotsky said:
So Avenatti said he wouldn't run, but Booker is still a top 5 prospect. Want to back out of our bet? You can get out with the low low price of reinstating JVS's signature.
Click to expand...
In my estimation, Avenatti still has a higher chance of being the Democratic nominee than Booker does. Again, Booker's chance is zero. Avenatti can win in a <1% hail mary scenario.
 
Lead said:
Definitely considering people aren’t even getting her name right in the thread (Klobuchar). I’ve finally managed to remember it today but it’s taken some time to finally stick.
Click to expand...

If she is looking good in the campaign, her name recognition will rise. I don't think it's a major obstacle if someone has a real chance.
 
Jack V Savage said:
If she is looking good in the campaign, her name recognition will rise. I don't think it's a major obstacle if someone has a real chance.
Click to expand...

Yea. I was just making the point that she truly isn’t a known politician yet to most people and thus the constant fumbling of her name. I don’t think the name itself is an obstacle but how well known she is could be, especially in a crowded field.
 
Jack V Savage said:
If she is looking good in the campaign, her name recognition will rise. I don't think it's a major obstacle if someone has a real chance.
Click to expand...
It can be a real obstacle in the primary if she's on stage with 15 other candidates. Not an issue in the general.
 
waiguoren said:
In my estimation, Avenatti still has a higher chance of being the Democratic nominee than Booker does. Again, Booker's chance is zero. Avenatti can win in a <1% hail mary scenario.
Click to expand...
Booker, man I dunno . Does he think people will take him seriously? Guy just doesn't come off as someone people cannot behind. Trump for all his faults knows how to get people to follow him. That and charisma. If you don't have charisma, you'd better be smart ..Booker has neither
 
ElKarlo said:
Booker, man I dunno . Does he think people will take him seriously? Guy just doesn't come off as someone people cannot behind. Trump for all his faults knows how to get people to follow him. That and charisma. If you don't have charisma, you'd better be smart ..Booker has neither
Click to expand...

I can't speak to charisma (I think Booker is a great speaker but is excessively cheesy), but Booker is undeniably brilliant. He got a Bachelor's and Master's from Stanford in 5 years, became a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, and then graduated from the most prestigious law school in the world, Yale Law. He's been regarded as a BJ Penn-esque prodigy in American politics for some time.
 
waiguoren said:
Passive voice tells all.
Click to expand...

Political insiders and financiers have regarded him as a BJ Penn-esque political prodigy for some time. Goldman Sachs and the like started trying to get in with him back when he was just a councilman in Newark, a very small potato office.
 
waiguoren said:
Let's see the names.
Click to expand...

I don't have names. Just like I don't have the names of people saying Obama was a political prodigy, who I am guessing you would agree was one. For both, I just point to obvious history: that both were politicians of impeccable pedigree (Booker's is actually better than Obama's) who received inordinate attention from big political financiers like Goldman in small scale races (Obama's state senate and Booker's municipal campaigns) and were allocated a lot of attention, responsibility, and resources by the Democratic Party toward grooming them for higher office.
 
Trotsky said:
I don't have names. Just like I don't have the names of people saying Obama was a political prodigy, who I am guessing you would agree was one.
Click to expand...

1) You asserted that "political insiders and financiers have regarded [Booker] as a BJ Penn-esque political prodigy for some time"

2) You are unable to name even one such "political insider or financier".

3) I did not assert that "political insiders and financiers have regarded Obama as a BJ Penn-esque political prodigy for some time", and even though I suspect many such people have expressed this view of Obama, I would not make the above assertion without evidence as you did for Booker.

Trotsky said:
both were politicians of impeccable pedigree (Booker's is actually better than Obama's) who received inordinate attention from big political financiers like Goldman in small scale races
Click to expand...

Could you please elaborate on the "inordinate attention" that Booker received from Goldman Sachs in his small-scale races?
 
waiguoren said:
1) You asserted that "political insiders and financiers have regarded [Booker] as a BJ Penn-esque political prodigy for some time"

2) You are unable to name even one such "political insider or financier".

3) I did not assert that "political insiders and financiers have regarded Obama as a BJ Penn-esque political prodigy for some time", and even though I suspect many such people have expressed this view of Obama, I would not make the above assertion without evidence as you did for Booker.

Could you please elaborate on the "inordinate attention" that Booker received from Goldman Sachs in his small-scale races?
Click to expand...

JFC, I explained my claim and I don't feel the need to go look up the heads of Goldman at the turn of the century or figure out who coordinated down ballot spending for the Democrats during Booker's rise. I think it's self-evident. If you take issue with it because I didn't list specific agenda setters, then so be it.
 
Trotsky said:
JFC, I explained my claim and I don't feel the need to go look up the heads of Goldman at the turn of the century or figure out who coordinated down ballot spending for the Democrats during Booker's rise. I think it's self-evident. If you take issue with it because I didn't list specific agenda setters, then so be it.
Click to expand...
got you, too easy.
 
Trotsky said:
I can't speak to charisma (I think Booker is a great speaker but is excessively cheesy), but Booker is undeniably brilliant. He got a Bachelor's and Master's from Stanford in 5 years, became a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, and then graduated from the most prestigious law school in the world, Yale Law. He's been regarded as a BJ Penn-esque prodigy in American politics for some time.
Click to expand...
He may have a good pedigree but the way he speaks doesn't show it imho. Obama was a pretty good orator so was Bill, Booker seems kinda like he gets lost. Jordan Peterson speaks well and makes you realize he's intelligent and has stuff going on. W Bush even if, IF he is smart, he never showed it when speaking. I think Booker comes off as a wonk and that will only harm his actual prospects when the candidates get whittled down
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

panem-et-circenses
Elections Congressman Dean Phillips to launch Democratic primary bid against Biden
2
Replies
25
Views
795
Source
Source

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,716
Messages
55,436,594
Members
174,775
Latest member
Ruckus245

Share this page

Back
Top