2020 Elections

[spork]

A place for debating issues and candidates, whether local or national.

Why I would never vote for Bernie Sanders: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/jane-omeara-sanders-burlington-college.html.

To be fair, I never voted for Al Gore when he was married to Tipper because of her PMRC activities.

[pgher]

AAAUGH! IT'S TOO SOON!

Just had to get that out. I haven't been plugged in yet. Too many candidates to sort through.

[writingprof]

By the same token, I won't vote for Biden because of "Dr." Jill's ridiculous Ed.D. in educational leadership. (Conversely, the fact that, in 2012, he told a black audience that Mitt Romney wanted to "put y'all back in chains" almost makes me admire the old fraud.)

[waterboy]

Although I admire Elizabeth Warren, I in no way see the country voting for another northeastern liberal.   And I'm from the northeast.

[fast_and_bulbous]

It's good to know that the plague of single-issue voting isn't a virus that only ravages lunkheaded rednecks.

[mamselle]

Well, of course, in one person's mind there's just one....

M.

[ciao_yall]

I was tied between Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris for president, but now I'm 90% Warren, 10% Harris. I like her and her ideas and I think that the country deserves more than pandering and soundbites.

Now for Veep?

Polling in the "fit for human habitation in the polls list*" are...

• Biden - nope. Just.... nope.
• Sanders - ditto. Just... ditto.
• Buttegeig - Red State - Run for Senate in Indiana, flip Congress and get more experience.
• Harris - AWESOME!
• Booker - Also like him, except is NJ a safe Blue seat?
• O'Rourke - Red State - ditto on Senate in Texas.
• Bullock - Who? Sorry, that's as low as I go without scuba gear.

So with Warren and Harris that's two women. Are we over ourselves yet?

With Warren and Booker we get a woman and a light-skinned black man. Are we over ourselves thinking we need a white-guy-with-a-haircut on the ticket? Except they are both Yankees. So, there's that...

* Source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/21/candidates-that-democratic-voters-most-want-see-drop-out-race/?utm_term=.4baf7d5928bf

[spork]

It's good to know that the plague of single-issue voting isn't a virus that only ravages lunkheaded rednecks.

I resemble that remark!

I wish the "mainstream media" would give more attention to candidates' statements/positions on immigration policy, given that the President is consistently trying to figure out new ways to demonize non-white immigrants as "terrorists" and "rapists." Here is one statement by Elizabeth Warren on the subject, at an Iowa campaign event.

Per waterboy's comment, Senator Warren's voice is terrible for public speaking. She needs someone with expertise -- voice coach, whatever -- to help her.

Edited to add: Representative Katie Porter vs. the CEO of JP Morgan, wow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlJnznzkSf4.

[drbrt]

Polling in the "fit for human habitation in the polls list*" are...

• Biden - nope. Just.... nope.
• Sanders - ditto. Just... ditto.
• Buttegeig - Red State - Run for Senate in Indiana, flip Congress and get more experience.
• Harris - AWESOME!
• Booker - Also like him, except is NJ a safe Blue seat?
• O'Rourke - Red State - ditto on Senate in Texas.
• Bullock - Who? Sorry, that's as low as I go without scuba gear.

I quite liked Hickenlooper as a governor, but I think his ceiling is VP. I'd rather he was running for senate.

[ciao_yall]

Polling in the "fit for human habitation in the polls list*" are...

• Biden - nope. Just.... nope.
• Sanders - ditto. Just... ditto.
• Buttegeig - Red State - Run for Senate in Indiana, flip Congress and get more experience.
• Harris - AWESOME!
• Booker - Also like him, except is NJ a safe Blue seat?
• O'Rourke - Red State - ditto on Senate in Texas.
• Bullock - Who? Sorry, that's as low as I go without scuba gear.

I quite liked Hickenlooper as a governor, but I think his ceiling is VP. I'd rather he was running for senate.

I suspect a lot of these long shots are just positioning themselves for Senate.

[polly_mer]

Vox has an ongoing series of articles summarizing where each Democratic candidate stands on particular issues: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/23/18304657/vox-guide-2020-democratic-policy-primary

I have been finding the summaries helpful for candidates who get much less coverage in outlets I tend to follow.  What I find interesting is how few of the candidates seem to be running for president as I understand the needs of the position and how many are running for some other position that isn't actually elected.   

I am regularly turned off by assertions that a candidate will fight for me when what I want is someone with vision who will set priorities for leaders in the executive branch to sort out problems.  If the problem cuts across several areas, as many problems do, then the vision is to assemble a team of people tasked with delegating to their employees and outside experts the task of creating the plan to address the problem.

I sigh heavily every time I hear Elizabeth Warren assert she has a plan for that issue, too, because that's not the president's job.  We can't afford a micromanager who keeps switching focus on the very narrow areas in response to whatever group last spoke to that person.  We need someone who spends most of their time at the high level willing to listen to the strategy and tactics that the rest of the group is discussing and then making the hard decisions so the enterprise can go forward.  That's a key distinction between true executive experience and solid experience as a leader of smallish groups.  To be clear, I want people in government who have good plans to address hard problems, but that's not the presidential job and someone will fail as president by thinking they can give orders to follow the presented-from-on-high-with-all-the-details plan and have it implemented in exactly that form.

I'm also not a big fan of many of the plans being proposed because many are overly complicated with means testing and lots of rules about who qualifies and how something is phased out.  Either whatever problem being solved by government money (i.e., our tax money) is a good idea so we should all chip in and then benefit (e.g., more education all around, better health care instead of merely longer insurance documents) or we should think really hard about why only the most direly poor folks should get another pittance instead of really supporting our fellow citizens so they can build and maintain a good life.  The half measure of giving a little money and then spending a ton of money on yet another bureaucracy is a bad plan, regardless of how many people agree that the root problem is truly a problem for government to solve.


Because I think so much in terms of the executive backed by a team of people doing the real work, I really like to see a team coalescing during the campaign.  Who is willing to go on the campaign trail as the mouthpiece asserting that the candidate really cares about everyone, but is only one person and so can't make every appointment?  Right now, Pete Buttigieg is the one I see with a team who has trusted seconds and thirds.  Chasten is really out there stumping for his husband.  Other members of the team are on Twitter interacting and providing a stream of Team Pete, not just handshakes and selfies on the trail with one-off supporters.  Other candidates getting a lot of coverage and campaigning across the US must have teams to make that happen, but I see far less coverage of spouses/children/best friends/second cousins/college roommates acting as trusted members of the team to take the stage and shake all the hands at the coffee shops.

I'm registered Libertarian, but our candidates are currently all crummy (Gary, where are you, man?!) so I'm looking at everyone.  My one big issue is national defense because the president is the commander in chief.  I look at the current state of the world, keep my fingers crossed for now, and make the first slice on a candidate to support based on who acknowledges that command in chief is a real part of the everyday job, not just an "other duties as assigned" possibility that might be invoked at some point some day under some condition.

[ciao_yall]

I sigh heavily every time I hear Elizabeth Warren assert she has a plan for that issue, too, because that's not the president's job.  We can't afford a micromanager who keeps switching focus on the very narrow areas in response to whatever group last spoke to that person.  We need someone who spends most of their time at the high level willing to listen to the strategy and tactics that the rest of the group is discussing and then making the hard decisions so the enterprise can go forward.  That's a key distinction between true executive experience and solid experience as a leader of smallish groups.  To be clear, I want people in government who have good plans to address hard problems, but that's not the presidential job and someone will fail as president by thinking they can give orders to follow the presented-from-on-high-with-all-the-details plan and have it implemented in exactly that form.

I sigh heavily every time some pol says some meaningless blather with no idea how it should be implemented or whether it's even possible/reasonable.

A true leader knows their field and can make proposals with an idea on how to actually get them done and what the pitfalls might be. 

I'm also not a big fan of many of the plans being proposed because many are overly complicated with means testing and lots of rules about who qualifies and how something is phased out.  Either whatever problem being solved by government money (i.e., our tax money) is a good idea so we should all chip in and then benefit (e.g., more education all around, better health care instead of merely longer insurance documents) or we should think really hard about why only the most direly poor folks should get another pittance instead of really supporting our fellow citizens so they can build and maintain a good life.  The half measure of giving a little money and then spending a ton of money on yet another bureaucracy is a bad plan, regardless of how many people agree that the root problem is truly a problem for government to solve.

Well, at least it's a start. She has done a lot of the good thinking about what the complexities and objections might be and how to get these to work. Will it actually be implemented the way she first laid out? Probably not, but at least she has thought a few steps ahead already and proposed solutions for the snags.

There are plenty of examples of do-gooders throwing money at something, but without a clear plan as to how this money will solve the problem at hand, it just gets wasted.

Example 1: https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-schools-education-newark-mayor-ras-baraka-cory-booker-2018-5

Example 2: https://sfist.com/2019/05/03/marc-benioff-and-wife-fund-30m-study-on-homelessness/

[fast_and_bulbous]

Since Example 2 just was awarded a month ago I think you kind of need to not dismiss it as having been a waste of money. Example 1 though, ugh....

[ciao_yall]

Since Example 2 just was awarded a month ago I think you kind of need to not dismiss it as having been a waste of money. Example 1 though, ugh....

Example 2 is just silly. Instead of giving $30 million to a bunch of already well-fed wonks, why not give it to the people who actually serve the homeless to get them housed?

[polly_mer]

I sigh heavily every time I hear Elizabeth Warren assert she has a plan for that issue, too, because that's not the president's job.  We can't afford a micromanager who keeps switching focus on the very narrow areas in response to whatever group last spoke to that person.  We need someone who spends most of their time at the high level willing to listen to the strategy and tactics that the rest of the group is discussing and then making the hard decisions so the enterprise can go forward.  That's a key distinction between true executive experience and solid experience as a leader of smallish groups.  To be clear, I want people in government who have good plans to address hard problems, but that's not the presidential job and someone will fail as president by thinking they can give orders to follow the presented-from-on-high-with-all-the-details plan and have it implemented in exactly that form.

I sigh heavily every time some pol says some meaningless blather with no idea how it should be implemented or whether it's even possible/reasonable.

A true leader knows their field and can make proposals with an idea on how to actually get them done and what the pitfalls might be. 

The problem is, at a certain level, no one human being can know enough to consider everything their field at the implementation details level.  For example, Elizabeth Warren has 31 issues on a recent poll (https://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/ew-warrenissuessurvey-om)  and still has ignored several issues that are important enough to me that I notice them missing from what is already an extensive list.

A true leader builds a fabulous team of experts and delegates the details.  One way organizations fail is to keep promoting people who are great at one position into the next position that needs different skills.  Doing things right is not the same as doing the right things.  When no one is setting the priorities and instead treats everything as approximately the same, then it's a crap shoot as to whether the necessary things get done.

Again, I want diligent people who have plans in government, but a true leader sets a vision with 3-5 guiding principles and 3-5 highest priorities while delegating the day-to-day tasks of implementation for new initiatives and just keeping the lights on to the team.  Someone who thinks leading is being the smartest in the room with a lot of detailed plans is not ready to be President of the United States of America.  The best leader assembles a great team of experts and then listens to those experts.  If the leader is the smartest one in the room, then that leader is doing it wrong.

For many of the areas about which I care, I guarantee that information exists that simply is not available to the general public nor to even just the average member of Congress.  What is available to the general public through the Nuclear Posture Review (https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF), the 2019 World Wide Threat Assessment (https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/2019-ATA-SFR---SSCI.pdf), and other official US government documents are not the full story about the state of the world.  That's why we have classifications that include Top Secret (unauthorized disclosure will cause exceptionally grave damage to the US https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/18/3a.11).  Thus, good plans in areas about which I care, including moving around troops and rightsizing the DOD require information that most people running for POTUS don't have in their current roles, even as members of Congress.

In short, I want someone who shows awareness of that the US is one of about 200 entities in the world who are not really getting along and who have very different views of what the world should look like.  At a minimum, I would like people who are running for president to at least show some freakin' awareness of the diplomatic issues and defense issues that cannot be done by a bunch of really interested local parties just banding together.  Some key areas really require a coordinated effort at the national level and some areas are kinda nice to have for a more pleasant society.  I want a leader who knows the difference and will set priorities.

It's really nice that people care about social issues, but POTUS isn't actually directly in charge of many of those areas.  POTUS is commander in chief and the top diplomat.