Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[waiguoren]

However, I doubt she wins - especially with all the negative media bias

@Jack V Savage has alleged repeatedly in this thread that this "media bias" is just a dumb conspiracy theory.

What key 2020 candidates are saying about the Green New Deal
The Hill


Cliffs:
Harris- co-sponsored/supports
Warren- co-sponsored/supports
Booker- co-sponsored/supports
Gillibrand- co-sponsored/supports
Klobuchar- expected to join/support
Castro- no comment released
Gabbard- no comment released
Buttigieg- supports but mentions it's broad
Delaney- supports "energy" of plan but not direct support

I was listening to that Buttigieg guy on NPR earlier. He impressed me. Seemed smart.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage has alleged repeatedly in this thread that this "media bias" is just a dumb conspiracy theory.

Incorrect (and of course you know it's incorrect and simply lack the honor to honestly represent my position). I've stated that the claim that the MSM is conspiring to deliberately bury candidates that they have secret opposition to is a dumb conspiracy theory.

 

[Lead]

I was listening to that Buttigieg guy on NPR earlier. He impressed me. Seemed smart.

I haven’t heard anything from him. I kinda dismiss the idea of a mayor being able to jump that far in office. Even DeBlasio doesn’t seem like a good idea imo. I’d prefer a governor and national level seat like senator as the norm. I bet he will get access to the debates however if he stays around.

 

[waiguoren]

Incorrect (and of course you know it's incorrect and simply lack the honor to honestly represent my position). I've stated that the claim that the MSM is conspiring to deliberately bury candidates that they have secret opposition to is a dumb conspiracy theory.

I thought you had written that there is no detectable MSM bias against Gabbard. Is that wrong?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I thought you had written that there is no detectable MSM bias against Gabbard. Is that wrong?

No detectable MSM bias against Gabbard is fine (other than the general higher standards that Democratic politicians are held to).

 

[waiguoren]

No detectable MSM bias against Gabbard is fine (other than the general higher standards that Democratic politicians are held to).

But the idea that there is media bias against Gabbard is not a dumb conspiracy theory?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I haven’t heard anything from him. I kinda dismiss the idea of a mayor being able to jump that far in office. Even DeBlasio doesn’t seem like a good idea imo. I’d prefer a governor and national level seat like senator as the norm. I bet he will get access to the debates however if he stays around.

I couldn't pick the dude out of a lineup. I know nothing about him except that he apparently supports the retarded GND but mentions it's broad.

 

[Jack V Savage]

But the idea that there is media bias against Gabbard is not a dumb conspiracy theory?

Depends how it is framed. "Significant parts of the MSM seem to be engaging in a transparent attempt to undermine her candidacy" is a dumb conspiracy theory. "The media generally doesn't see Gabbard as a serious candidate" is OK.

 

[waiguoren]

Depends how it is framed. "Significant parts of the MSM seem to be engaging in a transparent attempt to undermine her candidacy" is a dumb conspiracy theory. "The media generally doesn't see Gabbard as a serious candidate" is OK.

Thanks for clarifying this time.

 

[Lead]

I couldn't pick the dude out of a lineup. I know nothing about him except that he apparently supports the retarded GND but mentions it's broad.

I think he’d be ignored as much as Delaney or Ojeda but he’s gay. They will get him on the debate stage to further express how diverse the primary field is with race, gender, and sexual orientation. Just my guess.

 

[waiguoren]

@Jack V Savage

Which is the thread in which you addressed your evidence for Gabbard being "unethical, unprepared, and unintelligent"?

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage

Which is the thread in which you addressed your evidence for Gabbard being "unethical, unprepared, and unintelligent"?

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...nounced-she-is-running-for-president.3894351/

 

[Lead]

@Jack V Savage

Which is the thread in which you addressed your evidence for Gabbard being "unethical, unprepared, and unintelligent"?

There was a long exchange with multiple people in this thread.
https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/tulsi-gabbard-just-informally-announced-she-is-running-for-president.3894351/

 

[waiguoren]

There was a long exchange with multiple people in this thread.
https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/tulsi-gabbard-just-informally-announced-she-is-running-for-president.3894351/

Yeah, I was just reading through it. I sent some of it to my childhood friend who is a big Tulsi Gabbard guy and was a Sanders voter but who despises Hillary Clinton. His take on some of @Fawlty and @Jack V Savage 's posts from that thread:


These guys consistently conflate the concept of education with university degrees


And furthermore value it based solely on prestige of the institution, apparently


They must have found George W Bush highly intelligent and qualified



But I countered with

I think Bush didn't get very good grades. Jack seems to be taking the standard "high grades from an elite institution" view.

My own view is that Jack's view of "qualification" is far too narrow.

 

[Lead]

Yeah, I was just reading through it. I sent some of it to my childhood friend who is a big Tulsi Gabbard guy and was a Sanders voter but who despises Hillary Clinton. His take on some of @Fawlty and @Jack V Savage 's posts from that thread:
These guys consistently conflate the concept of education with university degrees

And furthermore value it based solely on prestige of the institution, apparently

They must have found George W Bush highly intelligent and qualified

But I countered with

I think Bush didn't get very good grades. Jack seems to be taking the standard "high grades from an elite institution" view.

My own view is that Jack's view of "qualification" is far too narrow.

I get some of the comments that may have irk'd people who like Gabbard but I think the process Jack had in there made sense. Like you said, you can argue how well or broad/narrow his vetting process is but he is being consistent with how he's vetting Gabbard from past elections I've seen him comment. It's just now about a candidate who has a decent following on this sub-forum and is causing a rift. Aside from Trump (who should be an exception, not a rule), she doesn't match up to past nominees like he's mentioned.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, I was just reading through it. I sent some of it to my childhood friend who is a big Tulsi Gabbard guy and was a Sanders voter but who despises Hillary Clinton. His take on some of @Fawlty and @Jack V Savage 's posts from that thread:


These guys consistently conflate the concept of education with university degrees


And furthermore value it based solely on prestige of the institution, apparently


They must have found George W Bush highly intelligent and qualified

But I countered with

I think Bush didn't get very good grades. Jack seems to be taking the standard "high grades from an elite institution" view.

My own view is that Jack's view of "qualification" is far too narrow.

I strongly believe that W is smarter than people think, smarter than most of his critics, and smarter than Gabbard, and that being govenor of Texas is good preparation for being president. He was a terrible president, but I blame that more on the general rot of the GOP than on him being unusually poorly prepared, incapable, or unready. That is, what made him bad was just doing the same kinds of shit that any Republican president would have done in that era. Contrast that with Trump, who is doing the same dumb things that Bush did, but is also grossly incompetent and morally and temperamentally unfit.

And I think you're misreading me on my view of qualification if you think it's too narrow. I pointed out Obama's books (and their success and quality) as being qualifying. If Taylor Swift wanted to run for office in 10 years, I'd think that her songwriting and business success would make her at least an interesting candidate (not for president, right away, though, but it would count toward my regard of her as a later presidential candidate). Not narrow at all. The problem with Gabbard is not that her credentials are unconventional. They're conventional but unimpressive, and nothing about her makes up for it. I could overlook her not excelling as a student if she demonstrated expertise in something afterward. I could overlook her lack of gov't experience if she had an impressive career in the private sector before entering gov't. Etc. Give me *something*, though. Some reason to think that you'd be good in the most important job in the world.

 

[waiguoren]

I get some of the comments that may have irk'd people who like Gabbard but I think the process Jack had in there made sense. Like you said, you can argue how well or broad/narrow his vetting process is but he is being consistent with how he's vetting Gabbard from past elections I've seen him comment. It's just now about a candidate who has a decent following on this sub-forum and is causing a rift. Aside from Trump (who should be an exception, not a rule), she doesn't match up to past nominees like he's mentioned.

I agree with this.

 

[waiguoren]

I strongly believe that W is smarter than people think, smarter than most of his critics, and smarter than Gabbard, and that being govenor of Texas is good preparation for being president. He was a terrible president, but I blame that more on the general rot of the GOP than on him being unusually poorly prepared, incapable, or unready. That is, what made him bad was just doing the same kinds of shit that any Republican president would have done in that era. Contrast that with Trump, who is doing the same dumb things that Bush did, but is also grossly incompetent and morally and temperamentally unfit.

And I think you're misreading me on my view of qualification if you think it's too narrow. I pointed out Obama's books (and their success and quality) as being qualifying. If Taylor Swift wanted to run for office in 10 years, I'd think that her songwriting and business success would make her at least an interesting candidate (not for president, right away, though, but it would count toward my regard of her as a later presidential candidate). Not narrow at all. The problem with Gabbard is not that her credentials are unconventional. They're conventional but unimpressive, and nothing about her makes up for it. I could overlook her not excelling as a student if she demonstrated expertise in something afterward. I could overlook her lack of gov't experience if she had an impressive career in the private sector before entering gov't. Etc. Give me *something*, though. Some reason to think that you'd be good in the most important job in the world.

Thanks for spelling that out. I disagree, but it's not really that important to me. My friend left me some messages in response to your view from the other thread. They were sent on an IM client, so forgive the formatting:

I think I would agree with him that she is under-qualified for the job. Her resume is thin, which is the main reason I was a little surprised she decided to run this time. I figured she might try for the Senate first.


But to me, under-qualified>disqualified, which is what most of the candidates are in my book.

She might be hoping to make enough of an impression to snag a VP nomination and boost her resume. Or maybe just to get some war opposition views into the Dem debate.

I think he’s deluding himself with Obama’s qualifications. Obama had what, two years in the Senate?

And edited the Harvard Law Review? How is that even a qualification?

Other than signaling intelligence

I see Gabbard’s experience as an officer in the US armed forces as a major qualification for Commander-in-Chief

 

[Lead]

Thanks for spelling that out. I disagree, but it's not really that important to me. My friend left me some messages in response to your view from the other thread. They were sent on an IM client, so forgive the formatting:

I think I would agree with him that she is under-qualified for the job. Her resume is thin, which is the main reason I was a little surprised she decided to run this time. I figured she might try for the Senate first.


But to me, under-qualified>disqualified, which is what most of the candidates are in my book.

She might be hoping to make enough of an impression to snag a VP nomination and boost her resume. Or maybe just to get some war opposition views into the Dem debate.

I think he’s deluding himself with Obama’s qualifications. Obama had what, two years in the Senate?

And edited the Harvard Law Review? How is that even a qualification?

Other than signaling intelligence

I see Gabbard’s experience as an officer in the US armed forces as a major qualification for Commander-in-Chief

I question too why she just doesn't look to the Senate for her next step up. The only reason I could see her running is she wants VP and thinks being in the race makes a better argument to get the spot if the right type of candidate moves forward. At this point, it seems like only Bernie is the match people assume. The senate situation is possibly an in-party issue where she doesn't want to rock the boat with the current senators in place. Senator Hirono is 71 but joined in 2013 so I'm unsure how long that she intends to stay around. Schatz got his seat originally by an appointment and just barely got by in the 2014 primary so my guess is that would be the seat to go for which would be 2022 (2014 was a special election). I don't really know anything about Hawaii politics though.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@waiguoren, I can't believe that Gabbard's sudden rebranding as an anti-war candidate has gone over so successfully. Usually people who make big position changes are regarded with skepticism. On the other hand, more plausible doves are regarded with extreme skepticism for no reason at all (inferring that about this guy from his comments). And I don't see how Obama being president of the Harvard Law Review is *not* a positive on his resume. Talk about overly narrow ideas of qualifications!