The Democrat Utopia

TGHusker said:
Guy, you hit it with the bold.  She like Trump was an opportunist - yes Trump more so. But her move to NY, etc all set her up as 'president in waiting'. 

However, I never found her vast experience being that great.  I never bought into the hyperbole  of her being the most experienced candidate (didn't Obama say 'ever').  In my life time GHW Bush, LBJ, are 2 that quickly come to mind.  There have been long term governors, Senators also.  Her husband was the Governor of Ark -- not her, He was the President, not her.  How many short term senators become SOS without that connection?  Our current first lady will have the same white house experience Hillary had while she was first lady and that won't make her qualified as SOS. 

Speaking of female candidates - Sen Harris from Ca seems like to me to be the best choice for the Dems.  Warren is tooooo old.   
Click to expand...




Warren said she's not running. I would be happy with her as president but scared she would lose the election.

 
Moiraine said:
Warren said she's not running. I would be happy with her as president but scared she would lose the election.
Click to expand...
yes, I think she would be an easier target than Harris.  What do you think of Sen Harris?

I think a Booker/Harris ticket would be hard to beat or Harris/Booker.  However, 2 senators doesn't bring a lot of experience diversity to the table.

The repubs - almost have to get Nikki Haley on the ticket  or another female not associated wt Trump-   Of course I say that thinking repubs won't have their lover affair wt Trump at that time after 2018.   If repubs run Pence they will be clobbered.   I don't foresee trump running in 2020(impeached or otherwise)

 
TGHusker said:
yes, I think she would be an easier target than Harris.  What do you think of Sen Harris?

I think a Booker/Harris ticket would be hard to beat or Harris/Booker.  However, 2 senators doesn't bring a lot of experience diversity to the table.

The repubs - almost have to get Nikki Haley on the ticket  or another female not associated wt Trump-   Of course I say that thinking repubs won't have their lover affair wt Trump at that time after 2018.   If repubs run Pence they will be clobbered.   I don't foresee trump running in 2020(impeached or otherwise)
Click to expand...




Plenty of Republicans still back Trump, so I think Pence would have a close election and maybe even win. Just depends how much people can ignore his association with Trump.

I like Harris from what I've seen of her so far. I'd almost be happy Clinton lost if Harris became president.

 
TGHusker said:
yes, I think she would be an easier target than Harris.  What do you think of Sen Harris?

I think a Booker/Harris ticket would be hard to beat or Harris/Booker.  However, 2 senators doesn't bring a lot of experience diversity to the table.

The repubs - almost have to get Nikki Haley on the ticket  or another female not associated wt Trump-   Of course I say that thinking repubs won't have their lover affair wt Trump at that time after 2018.   If repubs run Pence they will be clobbered.   I don't foresee trump running in 2020(impeached or otherwise)
Click to expand...
I'm hesitant on Harris. Her failure to prosecute Mnuchin despite all her subordinates telling her it was a good case, seems very politically motivated.

KAMALA HARRIS FAILS TO EXPLAIN WHY SHE DIDN’T PROSECUTE STEVEN MNUCHIN’S BANK

 
TGHusker said:
However, I never found her vast experience being that great.  I never bought into the hyperbole  of her being the most experienced candidate (didn't Obama say 'ever').  In my life time GHW Bush, LBJ, are 2 that quickly come to mind.  There have been long term governors, Senators also.  Her husband was the Governor of Ark -- not her, He was the President, not her.  How many short term senators become SOS without that connection?  Our current first lady will have the same white house experience Hillary had while she was first lady and that won't make her qualified as SOS. 
Click to expand...


Hillary Clinton was a two-term Senator and a high-profile Secretary of State for four years. Those alone are better qualifications than most candidates. And it would be churlish to suggest that 8 years as the First Lady wouldn't give you keen insight into every machination of the Presidency -- hugely valuable on-the-job training no other candidate could claim. And she was already a political animal at that point, not a cookie-baker.  I wouldn't under-value the 20 years of media attacks she navigated, either. And frankly, her years as a young corporate lawyer representing the likes of Walmart and Tyson Foods is serious real-world training, too. She literally knows how the sausage is made.

I did think G HW Bush had perhaps the most complete skillset: private businessman, U.S. Congressman, Ambassador to China, CIA Chief, and two terms as Vice-President. But it still couldn't buy him a second term.  

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Hillary Clinton was a two-term Senator and a high-profile Secretary of State for four years. Those alone are better qualifications than most candidates. And it would be churlish to suggest that 8 years as the First Lady wouldn't give you keen insight into every machination of the Presidency -- hugely valuable on-the-job training no other candidate could claim. And she was already a political animal at that point, not a cookie-baker.  I wouldn't under-value the 20 years of media attacks she navigated, either. And frankly, her years as a young corporate lawyer representing the likes of Walmart and Tyson Foods is serious real-world training, too. She literally knows how the sausage is made.

I did think G HW Bush had perhaps the most complete skillset: private businessman, U.S. Congressman, Ambassador to China, CIA Chief, and two terms as Vice-President. But it still couldn't buy him a second term.  
Click to expand...
Good points Guy.

GHWB - 2nd term : "Its the economy stupid its the economy"  -- also proves that if you make a key promise you better keep it  "Read my lips"

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Hillary Clinton was a two-term Senator and a high-profile Secretary of State for four years. Those alone are better qualifications than most candidates. And it would be churlish to suggest that 8 years as the First Lady wouldn't give you keen insight into every machination of the Presidency -- hugely valuable on-the-job training no other candidate could claim. And she was already a political animal at that point, not a cookie-baker.  I wouldn't under-value the 20 years of media attacks she navigated, either. And frankly, her years as a young corporate lawyer representing the likes of Walmart and Tyson Foods is serious real-world training, too. She literally knows how the sausage is made.
Click to expand...
She had some qualifications.  No way was she "the most qualified ever" like Obama tried saying repeatedly.

Obama must have been trying to do his Trump impersonation with that exaggeration.

 
BigRedBuster said:
She had some qualifications.  No way was she "the most qualified ever" like Obama tried saying repeatedly.

Obama must have been trying to do his Trump impersonation with that exaggeration.
Click to expand...


I'm willing to give G.H.W. Bush a slight edge in relevant Presidential experience. But can you name me one other candidate who could hit the White House running better than Hillary Clinton? 

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
I'm willing to give G.H.W. Bush a slight edge in relevant Presidential experience. But can you name me one other candidate who could hit the White House running better than Hillary Clinton? 
Click to expand...
Here is a link that quantified this issue.

LINK

Here's an article from VOX on this.

VOX

In other words, there have been many Presidents more qualified that Clinton would have been had she moved into the Whitehouse.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Here is a link that quantified this issue.

LINK

Here's an article from VOX on this.

VOX

In other words, there have been many Presidents more qualified that Clinton would have been had she moved into the Whitehouse.
Click to expand...


Interesting tidbit at the end of the first link:

Funfact: If Joe Biden had run in 2016, he would have 44 years total experience with a weighted XP of 48. He actually would have been the most qualified candidate ever, if you still think “qualified” ought to mean “experienced”.
Click to expand...
and good ending to the Vox article:

It’s hard to say. But it might not really matter: There doesn’t seem to be much correlation between the strength of a presidential candidate’s résumé and how history judges them after they’ve served in the White House.

In 1857, James Buchanan became president with a résumé just as impressive as Clinton’s (terms in the House and Senate, ambassador to Russia and the United Kingdom, secretary of state). After four years, he was succeeded by a man with remarkably thin qualifications — Abraham Lincoln had only served one term in the US House of Representatives before famously losing a Senate election.

But all that experience meant little. Buchanan went down in history as the man who couldn’t stop the impending Civil War, and Lincoln ended up with the giant memorial on the National Mall for saving the Union.

Similarly, Herbert Hoover, the last member of the Cabinet to become president, had a sterling reputation as an effective crisis manager and humanitarian before he moved into the White House, and as a world traveler who had lived in several countries. He’d managed food relief in Europe during and after World War I, helping save millions of people from starvation; as secretary of commerce, he directed relief after Mississippi River floods left more than 600,000 people homeless.

Then he became president in 1928 and oversaw the beginning of the Great Depression. "A great crisis manager and humanitarian" was not his legacy.

Many of the most effective presidents, on the other hand, had résumés that were perfectly adequate at best. Obama had served four years in the Senate; he ended up passing historic legislation and redefining the Democratic Party. Reagan had been governor of California and an actor. Franklin D. Roosevelt was governor of New York.

Qualifications are a fine thing to have. But history suggests they’re far from the most important thing when it comes to effective presidential leadership.
Click to expand...

 
Preet had a great interview this week with a behavior psychologist.  Re: Presidential candidates they found that the most narcisistic candidate usually wins.  With respect to leaders, they also get the least amount done.  He also got into the confidence vs. narcissism vs competence.  Good stuff.

 
Back
Top